At the Lectern
JULY 18, 2024
” It’s the UCL four-year statute of limitations, not the one-year provision in the Insurance Code — and similar language in the insured’s policy — for a “suit or action on th[e] policy.” The court reverses the First District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s 2-1 published opinion.
FDA Law Blog
JULY 8, 2024
The first question in the Court’s analysis was whether the claim that the SEC brought is a “suit at common law,” i.e., if the case is legal in nature. 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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
FEBRUARY 28, 2024
Given that the United States, as a sovereign, is generally immune from suits seeking money damages unless Congress chooses to waive that immunity, the Court’s “clear statement” rule allows a suit against the government only when “the language of the statute” is “unmistakably clear” in allowing it. government.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 20, 2023
Both Reed and Texas agree, Kavanaugh observed, that the statute of limitations for his claim is two years. The question before the Supreme Court is when the clock on that two-year statute of limitations began to run. This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JUNE 1, 2023
Supreme Court held that death row inmate Rodney Reed did not wait too long to seek DNA testing of the evidence in his case. According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.
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. This is a discussion for another day. [1]
Constitutional Law Reporter
APRIL 10, 2024
In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized that Section 1983 provides a cause of action against “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or us- age, of any State ” deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
45 
Let's personalize your content