This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In a unanimous slip opinion, the US Supreme Courtruled on Thursday that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) waives sovereign immunity and that the federal government can be liable for incorrect debt reporting that damages credit scores. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion of the court.
The Supreme Court of Canada found Friday that the government acted dishonestly when it reneged on an 1877 treaty to an Alberta indigenous community and allowed for declaratory relief. Canada amended its constitution in 1982 and, in doing so, created a new cause of action for bringing treaty disputes.
With spending clause legislation, the federal government provides funds in exchange for the funding recipient’s adherence to various conditions. Kavanaugh wrote a short concurrence, joined by Gorsuch, focused on the risks of judicial extension of remedies for implied causes of action.
By Riëtte van Laack & JP Ellison — On Thursday, the 27 th of June, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. 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.
1681n and 1681oauthorize suits for damages against “any person” who violates the FCRA, and §1681a expressly defines “person” to include “any” government agency. Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. “[W]e government. government. It held that the USDA could be sued because 15 U.
S. _ (2021), the Supreme Courtruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act barred college student James King’s claims of police brutality. The Court unanimously held that the district court’s dismissal of King’s claims under the FTCA triggered the “judgment bar” in 28 U.S.C. In Brownback v.
Share The courtruled on Thursday that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s routine practice of imposing fines in its administrative proceedings, used to penalize securities fraud, violates the Seventh Amendment “right of trial by jury” in all “suits at common law.”
United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court has considered whether statutory bars to causes of action are firm “jurisdictional” rules or instead more forgiving claims-processing rules. The trend appears largely, if not entirely, in cases against the United States.
Fossil fuel company defendants want the cases heard in federal court, where they can argue that the cases should be quickly dismissed on the grounds that federal common law climate claims are displaced by the Clean Air Act. The court distinguished the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp.
Based on this language, the trial courtruled that immunity was not removed, but the Court of Appeals disagreed with this analysis. At issue here was Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205, which states that immunity is not removed “if the injury arises out of…interference with contract rights.” Continue reading
Although plagiarism is not a cause of action, copyright infringement is – and that serves as the basis of the lawsuit here. The Constitutional promises of due process and the right to petition require that the law be available to all people – including corporate defendants and attorneys seeking access the courts.
The Court pointed out that even crediting defendant’s assertion that the annuity was meant to be a trust for the mother, to accomplish the purpose of qualifying her for Medicaid she had to be “divested of ownership over the annuity funds,” and plaintiff and defendant as the named owners had equal ownership interest of the annuity.
Supreme Courtruled that public officials may be held liable for their social media activity in certain circumstances. The District Court found that because Freed managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, and because only state action can give rise to liability under §1983, Lindke’s claim failed. In Lindke v.
At that time, Officer Godsey and a 911 operator “casually discussed the situation…[and] no action was taken then to shut down the highway or undertake any other preventative measures.” One of those three exceptions arises when “the plaintiff alleges a cause of action involving intent, malice, or reckless misconduct.”
The UK Supreme Courtruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. The lower courts and the UK Supreme court agreed with Shell. This was a one-off event and not a continuing nuisance.
by Dennis Crouch In a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district courtruling ordering the correction of inventorship for U.S. In contrast, § 256 provides a separate cause of action to correct the named inventors on a patent, which is not subject to the same congressionally-enacted statute of limitations.
Based on these findings, the Courtruled that plaintiff had not met the requirements of the first exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The Court next analyzed whether this case fell within the third special duty exception based on the deputy’s alleged reckless conduct. internal citation omitted).
Where plaintiff alleged that defendant doctor committed intentional misrepresentation and medical battery by stating that he was board-certified in plastic surgery when he was not, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that these claims were not governed by Tennessee’s HCLA. In Cooper v. Mandy , No.
Ignoring the threshold questions on which the court had not granted review and applying a longstanding clear-statement rule, a near-unanimous courtruled in favor of Puerto Rico’s financial oversight board. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo took the straight and narrow approach to resolving the case.
According to the Supreme Court, “[a] negligent act or omission is operational when it is made (1) in the absence of a formulated policy guiding the conduct or omission; or (2) when the conduct deviates from an established plan or policy.” The Court reasoned: We conclude that the acts alleged in the complaint are operational.
7] This was rightly rejected by the court, which observed that satisfaction of the gateway depended on the situation which existed at the time application for service out of jurisdiction was filed or heard. A parallel provision to Order 8 rule 1(3) can be found in the Singapore International Commercial CourtRules 2021 (‘SICC Rules’).
Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech. The courtruled that newspapers and television stations that post articles on social media sites like Facebook are liable for other third party comments on those posts. America Online, Inc.,
The special reasons which must be established by a claimant are contained in the relevant rules of courts. [14] 14] Where none of the conditions outlined in the Rules are met, the courts must refuse the application for leave. Olayiwola (2005) LPELR-806 (SC). [14]
The appellate court also found that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless because the State proved both acts beyond a reasonable doubt. Hawaii CourtRuled that Commercial Aquarium Fishing Required Environmental Review. European Court of Human Rights). Zepeda , No. 80593-2-I (Wash. 19-1230 (D.C.
In the same year, a divided Supreme Courtruled in National Institute for Family and Life Advocates v. Two other courts of appeals regard a therapist-client conversation as speech, rather than conduct, Tingley writes. Nineteen other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws. Transervice Logistics, Inc.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that the province of British Columbia (BC) may bring a class action on behalf of multiple governments in Canada for harm caused by opioids. The class action is currently awaiting certification.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected Monsanto’s argument that it could not have violated California’s duty to warn because the Environmental Protection Agency had concluded under the labeling provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act that the herbicide did not pose “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment.”
Both parties agreed that Virginia law would govern on choice of law since Nunes initiated this lawsuit in Virginia. That triggered Virginia’s application of the doctrine of lex loci delicti where “the law of the place of the wrong governs all matters related to the basis of the right of action.” Budget RentA-Car Sys.,
The courtruled against her and found that the park’s duty was only to “make conditions as safe as they appear to be” and that Munoz “ was aware of the risk she encountered, and expected to be surprised, startled, and scared.” She blamed the kid as “old enough to … follow the rules.”
Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co. , 19-1818 (1st Cir.).
If the justices take up the border-wall case, it will be the second case added to the court’s docket this term involving the legality of border-wall construction. Three petitions ask the justices to review disputes between the Department of Justice and state or local governments that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Instead, O’Connor applied for a job with the San Mateo County government, where she agreed to work for free until the office could find funding for her. O’Connor’s “experience as a state legislator and judge,” Wermiel suggested, gave “her a degree of trust in state government and state courts that goes well beyond that of her colleagues.”
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content