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 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.
Tower Vision Limited , [1] the Delhi High Court (“HC”) held that an appeal before an Indian civil court was infructuous due to a consent order passed by the Tel Aviv District Court in a matter arising out of the same cause of action. The Indian Supreme Court in Modi Entertainment v. Owners and Parties, Vessels MV Fortune Ltd. [3]
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.
Responding to questions asked by the Ninth Circuit about California law, the court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan precludes an action alleging a construction worker’s wife contracted COVID from her husband due to his employer’s failure to abide by government health orders at the beginning of the pandemic.
Litigation against major corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters has proven extremely tough. Even as successful cases against governments have blossomed, private suits face significant barriers. Under New Zealand law, such arguments should be struck out only if they “disclose[] no reasonably arguable cause of action”.
First Quality says that the accrual of a claim, the event that triggers the running of a statute of limitations, occurs when “a plaintiff knows of a cause of action,” but that is not ordinarily true. As we wrote in Petrella , “[a] claim ordinarily accrues when [a] plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.”
These ordinances were adopted despite a state law that prohibits local governments from placing restrictions on wind or solar facilities unless those restrictions: (a) protect health or safety; (b) do not significantly increase the cost or decrease efficiency; or (c) allow for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency.
DTSA fully opened the federal courts to trade secret litigation as well as added several new features, including an ex parte seizure remedy and whistleblower immunity. David Almeling and Victoria Cundiff are two of the most experienced trade secret litigators in the nation. DTSA added to the large and growing federal caseloads.
Reading from the bench on Thursday, Sotomayor called the majority’s decision “a devastating blow to the manner in which our government functions.” For Sotomayor, cases where the government itself is the claimant were the easy cases, the very definition of public rights.
Under the Fifth Amendment, “private property” cannot be “taken for public use” by the government “without just compensation.” Four years later, however, with the companies on their feet, the government changed its mind. They filed a series of lawsuits against the government. The court in Collins v. Coinbase, Inc.
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. Why, you might ask, should this matter?
Akin Gump filed a motion asking the court to dismiss Xcential’s counterclaims, arguing that they were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, a judicially-created doctrine that grants immunity from antitrust laws for legitimate petitioning conduct directed at any branch of government.
When entering into contracts, parties commonly include forum selection clauses to govern future litigation between the parties. For clarity, this covenant not to sue includes, but is not limited to, patent infringement litigations, declaratory judgment actions, patent validity challenges before the U.S. emphasis added).
Yet it significantly advances climate litigation in Brazil, with important consequences for future cases. This is the first time that a court has drawn the differences between environmental and climate litigation. The decision may have gone unnoticed. Background. Brazil and Federal Prosecutor Office v. Significance of the decision.
1] The topic is personal jurisdiction –when may a Federal Court exercise its power over an out-of-state patentee in a declaratory judgment action challenging the patent’s validity. Townes, Repeated and Specific Litigation Threats – Sufficient Minimum Contacts, Knobbe Martens Blog (2021). [3] 2001) (same); Akro Corp.
Local and state government plaintiffs want the cases to remain in state court, where they can argue that climate nuisance claims are similar to past common law efforts to hold companies accountable for misleading the public about their products’ harms, like those against tobacco companies. Chevron Corp.
At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, after which Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye announced her retirement, actions of note included: Government immunity. Superior Court and limited the issue to: “Is Santa Clara County immune under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) Inevitable discovery.
These include drug seizures at the inn, Boule’s role as a paid government informant, and his Canadian conviction for human trafficking. But Bivens “is concerned solely with deterring the unconstitutional acts of government officers” with the goal of preventing constitutional violations. Gorsuch’s concurrence.
Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government. This is a win for individual liberty and the Constitution,” But Kym Meyer, the litigation director for the Southern Environmental Law Center, decried the ruling in a statement. “[T]he
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. According to the dissent, where the government is the claimant, it concerns a public right.
Gorgi Talevski’s family brought a Section 1983 action against Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation, a government nursing facility owned by Health and Hospital Corp. Government enforcement and administrative remedies may suffice, as will a “centralized review mechanism” that would be undermined by piecemeal individual litigation.
Calling the 9th Circuit’s decision an extension of Miranda into Section 1983 litigation, Martinez characterized the court’s landmark decision as a judicially crafted prophylactic Fifth Amendment “protective fence” that does not create a Section 1983 cause of action for money damages.
Generally, if the police obtain a suspect’s statement in violation of Miranda , the government cannot use that statement against the defendant in court. Tekoh moved to suppress the government’s use of his un- Mirandized statement. A second trial occurred where the government, again, introduced Tekoh’s statement.
The sheer origin of Jurisdiction can be claimed to draw its essence from Public International Law, Constitutional law, the conflict of laws and the powers stipulated in the legislative and executive branches of the government to allocate resources in order to adequately serve the needs of the society. In the case of A.B.C.
Climate change nuisance litigation is entering a new and dynamic phase. The decisions on these motions could influence pending and future litigation in the same vein – lawsuits seeking damages, compensation or abatement funds to alleviate the costs borne by local governments to adapt to climate change impacts. By Michael Burger.
But that is not the question the justices agreed to review – the lower courts assumed that the board had sovereign immunity and so did not address the question at all – and Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion for a majority of eight declines to decide that question at this late stage of the litigation.
Federal Laws Governing Data Privacy. Currently, the legal framework for data privacy consists of a patchwork of state and federal laws and regulations and industry standards that govern the collection, use, and disclosure of private information.
The UK Supreme Court ruled 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 jurisdiction and applicable law in the specific case of Bonga spill litigation have been closely followed inter alia by Geert van Calster here.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. 286, is specifically limited to remedies for infringement.
Anyone litigating a case where the Public Duty Doctrine might be an issue would be wise to read this opinion and be aware of the multiple other cases it cites. internal citation omitted). Plaintiff alleged that both the first and third special relationship exceptions to the Public Duty Doctrine applied.
This year, the filing of a number of fashion and broader retail industry lawsuits and developments in previously-filed ones stood out in the crowded landscape of litigation in many cases because they indicate larger trends within the fashion space. According to the declaratory judgment action that it filed with the U.S.
The access claim does not assert ‘a litigating opportunity yet to be gained or an opportunity already lost,’ nor is there an underlying cause of action the vindication of which is prevented by the denial of access to the courts.
Given the power of Big Tech Companies, their enormous financial resources, cross-jurisdictional reach and their global impact on users’ privacy, there are two main litigation challenges for successfully bringing a privacy claim against Big Tech. 3] Secondly, the challenge is how to finance mass claims, involving millions of affected users.
Nearly all of the state and local government plaintiffs filed their cases in state court. Strategic pleading by government plaintiffs The appellate court decisions to remand the cases to state court turned on decisions over whether the plaintiff’s claims’, although frame as state law claims, actually arise under federal law.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. On November 23, GM announced that it was withdrawing from the litigation. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati.
The decision illustrates that the relevance of the domicile of natural persons for the jurisdiction in direct actions for damages against board members (Art 4, 62 Brussels Ia Regulation) can lead to the fact that courts of different member states have to decide on crucial aspects of complex investor litigation at the same time.
The remedy of a Mareva injunction (or freezing injunction) was developed as a means of curtailing this form of bad litigation tactics by a judgment debtor. i) that he has a cause of action against the defendant which is justiciable in Nigeria: [10] See – Siskina (Owners of Cargo lately laden on borad) v distas Compania S.A
Jurisdiction to prescribe (the authority to make law) and jurisdiction to adjudicate (the authority to apply law) are very different things and are governed by different rules of domestic and international law. Congress clearly intended its cause of action for trafficking in confiscated property to discourage non-U.S.
Successive Nigerian governments across all tiers have made the attraction of foreign investments a cardinal part of their economic policies and have accordingly made deliberate efforts and committed abundant resources to attract foreign investments into Nigeria. [1]
However, a suit for recovery based upon a cause of action that is within the limitation can in no way affect the separate and independent remedy of a winding-up proceeding by somehow keeping the debt breathing. Moreover, an unconditional acknowledgement is enough to ‘furnish a cause of action’ for it implies a promise to pay.
Konan , the government now seeks review. In an unusual move, Konan, reprented by the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, has filed a conditional cross-petition ( Konan v. The government also says there are several record-specific reasons to believe Konan should lose. In United States Postal Service v.
Boule considers whether to “extend” the Bivens cause of action to First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment claims arising from immigration enforcement near the U.S.-Canada The judicially created Bivens cause of action functions as the counterpart to 42 U.S.C. The federal government’s arguments.
This case presents whether a resident deprived of those rights can sue a publicly owned and operated nursing home under Section 1983, which provides a cause of action against government actors who deprive anyone of rights secured by the “laws” of the United States, meaning other federal statutes, including spending clause enactments.
and global climate litigation movement. Moreover, the case in Puerto Rico comes after recent litigation successes in Europe and elsewhere around the world, with courts holding governments and companies accountable for climate harms. climate litigation brought by cities and other subnational jurisdictions is still rare.
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