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 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. Zepeda , No. 80593-2-I (Wash.
The court faced but did not decide the issue of whether to overrule Smith in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ; a similar question was presented in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis , but when the court granted review in that case, it revised the question presented to avoid that issue.)
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.” See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102.
Casey , the court considered a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that imposed a variety of restrictions on women seeking an abortion, including a requirement of “informed consent” for all women, parental consent for minors, and mandatory spousal notification for married women. O’Connor’s opinion in Jackson v.
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