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 the State of Colorado struck down the state’s Child Sexual Abuse Accountability Act (CSAAA) on Tuesday, ruling that the law violates the state constitution and is “unconstitutionally retrospective.” M árquez authored the opinion of the court. ” Justice Monica M.
The Supreme Court has previously held that private plaintiffs may secure a particular judicial remedy for the violation of spending clause statutes only if the defendant that received federal funds is on notice that it exposes itself to that remedy by accepting the funds. Check back soon for in-depth analysis of the opinion.
HCLA statute of limitations for claim against doctor and hospital began to run on same date. Defendants moved to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations, arguing that the one-year limitations period for this HCLA claim began to run on October 31, 2017 when plaintiff learned that the screws had been inserted incorrectly.
55-8-136, which is a Class C misdemeanor, the statute of limitations for plaintiff’s action was extended to two years pursuant to Tenn. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations issue, but the trial courtruled in favor of plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
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. 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. Jarkesy.
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.
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. Why, you might ask, should this matter? In most cases, perhaps, it would not.
primary law library of cases, statutes, regulations, courtrules and constitutions. The e-discovery company DISCO said today it has entered into a long-term license with the international legal research company vLex to obtain access to its U.S.
Share The Supreme Court on Friday substantially narrowed a class action against TransUnion , one of the nation’s three major credit-reporting companies. Friday’s ruling in TransUnion v. The Supreme Courtruled in Spokeo v. The Constitution does no such thing.”
Where the other driver in a car accident case died before suit was filed and the plaintiff failed to “timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations,” summary judgment for the personal representative was affirmed. Luethke , No. E2020-00317-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Code Ann. §
by Dennis Crouch In a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district courtruling ordering the correction of inventorship for U.S. 286 (“no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.”)
The trial court found plaintiff’s testimony that she was not involved in setting up the annuity and had no knowledge of it to be credible, and it ruled that defendant was liable for conversion. These rulings were affirmed on appeal. In Pomeroy v. McGinnis , No. E2020-00960-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118(g). “In
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.”
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. One involves “a statute [that] says in so many words that it is stripping immunity from a sovereign entity.”
Under the public duty doctrine, public employees and governmental entities are shielded “from suits for injuries that are caused by the employee’s breach of a duty owed to the public at large rather than to the individual plaintiff,” unless one of three special duty exceptions applies. internal citation). internal citations omitted).
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).
Notably, subsection (a)(2) specifically states that the certificate of good faith “must certify that ‘there is a good faith basis for maintaining the action as to each defendant consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115.” The Court continued its analysis by pointing out that one of its prior decisions supported dismissal in this case.
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.
Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01, “the right of the plaintiff to dismiss the action without prejudice is free and unrestricted except in limited and well-defined circumstances.” Rule 41.01 internal citation omitted). internal citation omitted). internal citations and quotations omitted). internal citation omitted).
Although the ministerial exception might ultimately shield Faith Christian from liability, the courtruled, it does not protect the school against having to litigate Tucker’s lawsuit at all. Whether Tucker served as a minister is a difficult question for a jury to answer, the 10th Circuit explained. Murco Wall Products, Inc.
Simply put, [defendants] were no longer on notice that [plaintiff] might pursue a cause of action for health care liability against them. Further, this case demonstrates the importance of carefully following the timeline outlined in the statute, as notice must be given at least sixty days before the complaint is filed.
The FCRA also creates a cause of action for consumers to sue and recover damages for certain violations. The District Courtruled that all class members had Article III standing on each of the three statutory claims. Congress may enact legal prohibitions and obligations.
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.
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.
3] This objective of this reform was to render it ‘unnecessary for a claimant to scrutinise the long list of permissible cases set out in the existing Rules in the hope of fitting into one or more descriptions.’ [4] 21] Order 8 rule 1(3) is missing the first option.
Secondly, a court can validly exercise jurisdiction over a defendant in an action in personam where such defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction or waives his right to raise a jurisdictional challenge. Thus, a court may only stretch its jurisdictional arm outside its territory in certain limited circumstances. [12]
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. 47 U.S.C. §
The Federal Court Legislation Amendment Rules 2022 (Cth) (‘Amendment Rules’) came into force on 13 January 2023. Among other things, they amend the Federal CourtRules 2011 (Cth) (‘FCR’) by repealing division 10.4, The Amendment Rules replace the old division 10.4 1] Civil Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) div 6.8.9;
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.
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.”
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. Trimble ␣ 315 Mo.
and “without an allegation of special damages, the [AC] does not allege a legally sufficient cause of action [for defamation] under California law.” The Supreme Courtruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. Companies, Inc.,
The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes.
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