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
The Supreme Court on Monday morning added seven new cases, covering issues ranging from campaign-finance regulations to the flexibility of the deadline to move a case from state to federal court, to its docket for the 2025-26 term. The cases granted on Monday will likely be argued in the fall, with a ruling to follow sometime in 2026.
Supreme Courtruled that non-citizens challenging their removal under the Alien Enemies Act must bring habeas petitions in the district where they are detained. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. Supreme Courts Decision The U.S.
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.
Share The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 against a plaintiff seeking emotional distress damages for alleged violations of certain federal anti-discrimination laws. In Thursday’s ruling in Cummings v. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
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. To demonstrate such a stake, he explained, plaintiffs must show an injury “that the defendant caused and the court can remedy.”
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.
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.
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.
Supreme Court held that a consumer may sue a federal agency under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o for failing to comply with the terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). While the District Court sided with the USDA, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Kirtz , 601 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S. government.
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 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.”
by Dennis Crouch In a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district courtruling ordering the correction of inventorship for U.S. The district court agreed, finding their contributions were significant to the conception of the claimed invention. The inventorship correction statute – 35 U.S.C. §
The trial court found, based on the testimony of the parties, that the purpose of the annuity was to ensure that the mother would eventually qualify for Medicaid benefits. After denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court held a bench trial. These rulings were affirmed on appeal. In Pomeroy v. McGinnis , No.
By a vote of 5-4, the justices held that only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) has Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court. The FCRA also creates a cause of action for consumers to sue and recover damages for certain violations.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, at what stage of litigation the ministerial exception should come into play. Both a federal district court and the U.S.
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. They sued Shell in English courts. The case at hand is an appeal on a part of an earlier rulings. This occurred some weeks after the spill.
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.
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.”
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, relying in part on the Public Duty Doctrine, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. If the GTLA removes immunity, then the common law rule of immunity under the Public Duty Doctrine provides an additional layer of defense and is the next level of inquiry for the court.
Plaintiff filed his HCLA complaint against the non-State employees in circuit court, and he filed his complaint against the State with the Division of Claims and Risk Management. On appeal, that ruling was reversed. The Court of Appeals began by looking at Tenn. Code Ann. § Without proper identification of Dr.
Where plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in his defamation case before defendants filed their petition to dismiss under the TPPA, the trial court erred by granting defendants’ petition for dismissal and awarding them attorneys’ fees and sanctions after plaintiff’s nonsuit. These rulings were reversed and vacated on appeal.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the HCLA required plaintiff to send a pre-suit notice before this second suit was filed, and the trial court agreed, dismissing the case. Simply put, [defendants] were no longer on notice that [plaintiff] might pursue a cause of action for health care liability against them. Code Ann. §
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. § 230(e)(3).
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 which dealt with service outside Australia.
Federal Court Found Flaws in New Climate Change Analysis for Wyoming Oil and Gas Leases. The federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that the U.S. Third, the court found that BLM used internally inconsistent emission rates. In 2018, the court vacated EPA’s earlier denial of the request.
The issuance and service of an originating process are fundamental issues that afford or rob a court of jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter. This is because it is settled law that the proceedings and judgment of a court which lacks jurisdiction result in a nullity [1]. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria.
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. §
Application of Singapore’s new rules on service out of jurisdiction: Three Arrows Capital and NW Corp The Rules of Court 2021 (‘ROC 2021’) entered into force on 1 April 2022. Among other things, ROC 2021 reformed the rules on service out of jurisdiction (previously discussed here ).
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled plaintiffs can pursue claims based on recklessness and gross negligence under the GTLA. If this section is fulfilled and immunity is removed, courts considering a GTLA suit “proceed to another step in their analysis,” considering the public duty doctrine. In Lawson v. 29-20-205[.]”
Accordingly, the federal court in New York had to decide where how Virginia courts would likely rule on the “place of the wrong” in this multistate defamation case. It ruled that the Virginia courts would likely apply the California law. Jones , 370 F. 3d 630, 664 (W.D. See Barrett v. Banknote Corp.,
After the shooting, plaintiff filed this suit against defendant Perry County claiming that “the deputy sheriff’s failure to investigate the death threats and arrest [husband] was the proximate cause of her injuries.” The Court reasoned: We conclude that the acts alleged in the complaint are operational. internal citations omitted).
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. As October Term 2021 winds to a close, the Supreme Court is holding its penultimate scheduled conference this week. The petitioners also ask the court to overrule Employment Division v.
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to adequately analyze the climate change and environmental justice impacts of two liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals on the Brownsville Shipping Channel in Texas and two pipelines that would carry LNG to one of the terminals. 20-1045 (D.C.
On June 15, 2023, the court issued the ultimate judgment not only on the torts claims but perhaps the state of our politics. He ruled for both the claim of the Plaintiff and the counterclaim of the Defendant and denied any damages to either party. _ A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail.
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