Remove California Remove Court Rules Remove Statute
article thumbnail

US Supreme Court rules bankruptcy debtor liable for partner’s fraud

JURIST

The statute at issue bars debtors from discharging debts “for money…obtained by…fraud.” ” The court ruled that because the statute’s text is written in the passive voice, the statute turns on how the money was obtained, not who committed the fraud to obtain the money.

article thumbnail

US Supreme Court refuses to move California suit against oil companies to federal court

JURIST

The US Supreme Court declined Monday to take up an appeal by a group of oil companies challenging a California state court ruling permitting two California cities to sue for damages related to climate change, meaning the case will be heard in state court.

Court 210
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Court rejects non-citizen’s challenge to “unlawful re-entry” charge

SCOTUSBlog

Eight years later, he was deported on the basis of a California conviction for driving under the influence. But after his deportation, the Supreme Court ruled in Leocal v. Ashcroft that, under the relevant federal statute, DUI convictions do not provide grounds for the removal of people like Palomar-Santiago.

Court 145
article thumbnail

Twelve cases added to Supreme Court calendar

SCOTUSBlog

California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. On Friday, the justices agreed to decide whether the Nollan / Dolan test applies to a California man’s challenge to a development fee, or whether – as a California appeals court ruled – the fee is instead immune from such review because it was authorized by legislation.

article thumbnail

Court rejects non-citizen’s challenge to criminal re-entry charge

SCOTUSBlog

Eight years later, an immigration judge found that his California conviction for driving under the influence was an aggravated felony under the federal immigration laws. But six years after his deportation, the Supreme Court ruled in Leocal v. The direct implications of the court’s ruling are likely quite narrow.

Felony 125
article thumbnail

A bungled house sale, a bankrupt couple, and a statutory puzzle involving debts incurred through fraud

SCOTUSBlog

Dissatisfied with the purchase, Buckley eventually obtained a judgment in a California state court based on the failure of the Bartenwerfers to disclose information about the house on the standard-form Transfer Disclosure Statement. The statute refers to the discharge of “any” debt obtained by “fraud.”

Statute 98
article thumbnail

Netflix, Hulu Don't Owe Franchise Fees, Calif. Panel Rules

Law 360

Netflix and Hulu have again beaten a proposed class action from a California city claiming the streaming providers should be regulated like cable companies and pay franchise fees to localities, with a state appeals court ruling the city had no right to private action under a 2006 statute.

Statute 52