Constitutional Law Reporter
JUNE 17, 2022
Supreme Court held that the authority of a court to imply a cause of action under Bivens v. While the Court did not overrule Bivens , it did emphasize that recognizing a Bivens cause of action is “a disfavored judicial activity.”. In Egbert v. Boule , 596 U.S. _ (2022), the U.S. Border Patrol agent.
JURIST
FEBRUARY 27, 2021
The bill seeks to restore certain provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act that were gutted by a 2013 Supreme Court decision. It prohibits any sort of voting practice or procedure that would cause the denial or abridgment of the right to vote to any person based on race, color, or membership in a minority language group.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Conflict of Laws
MAY 31, 2021
However, the defendant/appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Kastina State High Court to hear the case on the basis that the contract in issue was concluded in Yobe State, where it claimed the cause of action arose, which it argued was outside the jurisdiction of Kastina State.
Mondaq
JUNE 13, 2022
In this appeal, the Eighth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that Ohio's Uniform Trade Secret Act broadly preempts not only causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets but also causes of.
FDA Law Blog
JULY 8, 2024
That the claim rested on a federal statute and required the SEC to establish facts that do not match any cause of action known to the common law in 1791 was not dispositive. According to the Court, the remedy is considered the more important factor. The impact on FDA matters could be significant.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
JUNE 15, 2012
The complaint asserted four causes of action relating to the legality of New York’s participation in RGGI. The fourth cause of action raised the question of whether RGGI violates the Compact Clause as a multistate contract not authorized by Congress. The complete court decision is available here.
At the Lectern
JULY 18, 2024
.” The court concludes the insured’s action is an “essentially ‘preventive’ ” one “to which neither the standard policy’s language [provided by statute], nor the policy reasons underlying the Legislature’s authorization of a one-year limitations period for filing certain kinds of claims-related lawsuits, applies.”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content