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 US Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a ruling that allowed several individuals to sue food corporations Nestlé USA and Cargill over child slavery claims, limiting corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute. The case which the Supreme Court decided was Nestlé USA, Inc. Doe I, consolidated with Cargill, Inc.
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.
In a unanimous slip opinion, the US Supreme Court ruled 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 Arizona Statute of Limitations Applicable to Collection Lawsuits and Non-Judicial Trustee’s Foreclosure Sales of Real Property, article by Larry O. 2007) (a cause of action “accrues” each time a party fails to perform as required by the contract) and Ortiz v. Folks, Folks Hess, PLLC (1/2021). Short answer: No. Trinity Fin.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit accepted all three arguments and invalidated three aspects of the SEC’s operations. It should be enough to validate the congressional scheme that the features of the securities cause of action here do not match the elements of the 18th century cause of action for fraud.
Share In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”
The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether parties can contractually agree to shorten the statute of limitations period for bringing a copyright infringement claim. Normally, the statute of limitations for a copyright violation is three years. In an unpublished opinion in the case, Evox Productions, LLC v.
by Dennis Crouch The Copyright Act has a seemingly simple three year statute of limitations: No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued. Nealy, 22-1078 (Supreme Court 2023). ” Warner Chappell Music, Inc. 663 (2014). Aktiebolag v.
Supreme Court clarified when plaintiffs can seek redress in U.S. courts for human rights abuses that occur overseas. By a vote of 8-1, the Court held that to plead facts sufficient to support a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. Supreme Court’s Decision. The Supreme Court reversed.
The US Supreme Court Monday heard oral arguments in Axon Enterprise, Inc. Axon filed proceedings in federal district court claiming that agency proceedings violate its due process rights. ” Stewart argued that the FTC Act review provisions authorizes courts of appeals to review final commission orders. .”
The Supreme Court held last week that the answer is yes. The first is Section 544, which creates a federal cause of action allowing the bankrupt to recover funds it paid out before bankruptcy whenever the transfer is voidable under applicable law. It does not change the substantive requirements of the claim itself.
A federal California court Tuesday dismissed Ali Al-Ahmed’s lawsuit against Twitter Inc. US Judge Edward Chen for the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Al-Ahmed’s amended complaint’s causes of action were time-barred and improperly pled. for suspending his account.
Know the Statute of Limitations Period. The statute of limitations is a time limit on a particular cause of action. The failure to commence a lawsuit within this time period will likely result in the lawsuit being dismissed by a court. initial intake). Learn Medication Abbreviations.
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. Premier Rehab Keller PLLC , the court applied the contract-law inquiry to hold that Cummings could not recover damages for emotional distress.
Share The Supreme Court on Friday substantially narrowed a class action against TransUnion , one of the nation’s three major credit-reporting companies. A jury sided with the consumers and ordered TransUnion to pay more than $60 million in damages, though a federal appeals court later reduced the verdict to $40 million.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently explained the analysis for whether a statute creates a private right of action. Plaintiff general contractor brought this action in chancery court, asserting that it had a private right of action pursuant to a Tennessee statute. Auto-Owners Insurance Company , No.
Supreme Court held that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not accrue for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2401(a) ’s default six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U. In Corner Post, Inc.
This interesting case is pending before the Supreme Court of Georgia over the question of keyword advertising under Georgia law. As a matter of fact, this is an illegal [theft-by-]taking, and Edible can introduce evidence within the framework of the Complaint to prove each cause of action. by Dennis Crouch. Edible IP v.
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 court ruled in favor of plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
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.
Victory Woodworks , the Supreme Court today holds that employers currently can’t be sued for failing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members. Allowing liability “would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy,” the court says. In Kuciemba v.
Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who deprives a person of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. The court then applied its long-standing two-step analysis to conclude that FNHRA is enforceable through Section 1983.
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. First, modern cases like Boechler require a clear statement for a statute of limitations to operate as jurisdictional.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today. In his dissenting opinion , Circuit Judge Jerry E. ” Perhaps the majority agrees. ” Perhaps the majority agrees.
Talevski , to be argued Tuesday, returns the court to the question of when federal law is subject to private enforcement. The court will consider whether to overrule a line of precedent and to hold that private individuals cannot use 42 U.S.C. The district court dismissed the action, but the U.S. Arguments of HHC.
If the Department of Agriculture were a private lender, Kirtz could bring suit in a federal court to present those allegations as a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The lower courts rejected the government’s argument, but the justices have agreed to take a second look.
Kronstadt), the Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s indirect patent infringement claims for failure to sufficiently allege Defendant “made” the accused product. However, in contrast, the Court also found the allegations do not meet the standard for pleading indirect infringement. In Bell Semiconductor, LLC v.
Ordinarily and subject to several important exceptions, the statute of limitations in Tennessee personal injury cases is one year. One exception to that rule is Tenn. 28-3-104(a(2), which addresses situations where the civil defendant faced criminal charges as a result of a incident giving rise to the cause of action.
The years-long legal battle between H&M and pattern-making company Unicolors is going before the Supreme Court. The appeals court held that a collection of works may be registered under a single-unit registration, but that is only an option when the works were first published in a singular, bundled unit.
In response to the catastrophic stock-market declines that set off the Great Depression, Congress enacted, along with a variety of other statutes, the Securities Act of 1933. The lower court said yes, holding that the statute applies whether the specific shares in question were registered or not.
Tri-Modal Distribution Services , the Supreme Court today interprets the statute of limitations for employment harassment cases to give certain plaintiffs more leeway to bring their lawsuits, and it protects many unsuccessful plaintiffs from paying defendants’ appellate costs.
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. ” Dawgs appealed.
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.
On the heels of the high fashion retailer and the magazine publisher pushing back against the models’ claims in respective motions to dismiss, and a New York federal court stripping down the case, Condé Nast is trying to get the rest of the case – including the plaintiffs’ right of publicity and unjust enrichment claims – tossed out. .
Share This week we highlight cert petitions (and one original action ) that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether New Jersey can withdraw from its Waterfront Commission Compact with New York concerning governance and law enforcement over the Port of New York and New Jersey. In New York v. However, the U.S.
In Nigerian judicial parlance, we have become accustomed to the principle that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even at the Nigerian Supreme Court – the highest court of the land – for the first time. [1] On this basis the defendant/appellant argued that the court of Yobe State had exclusive jurisdiction.
On December 17, 2021, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) held that an employee has a cause of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where the employer terminates the employee for.
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.
All members of the court joined Kagan’s opinion finding that toy a condemnable infringement of the Jack Daniel’s marks. Second, the central purpose of the cause of action for trademark infringement in the federal Lanham Act is confusion, specifically, confusion “about the source of a product or service.”
Joseph Health System , the Supreme Court today holds that the anti-SLAPP statute , which allows for an early screening of claims that could chill constitutionally protected free speech or petition rights, can be used to review some, but not all, causes of action relating to mandatory hospital medical staff peer review proceedings.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, the viability of certain types of disability-based claims under three federal statutes. courts of appeals are “nearly evenly divided” on this issue, the county asks for the justices’ review. The en banc U.S. Exby-Stolley.
primary law library of cases, statutes, regulations, court rules 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.
The pending Supreme Court case of Warsaw v. There are two different statutes regarding Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. 1338(a) provides Federal district courts with “original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” ” Id.
by Dennis Crouch and Timothy Knight On February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Warner Chappell Music v. Although the statute does not make any distinction between a right to file an action and a right to back damages, the distinction stems from ambiguous dicta in the Court’s 2014 Petrella 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