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
20, 2021), that a cause of action filed under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by employees of Kerry, Inc., On September 20, 2021, the Seventh Circuit ruled in Fernandez v. Kerry, Inc., 21-1067 (7th Cir.
In the wake of the heavy use of reservists during the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and related military actions, Congress enacted a “differential pay bill” which sought to ensure that reservists whose military pay was less than their civilian pay continued earning at the higher civilian level during deployment. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
They argued that they had a right of action under 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3), which creates an exception to foreign sovereign immunity when the case concerns “rights in property taken in violation of international law.” Their claim did not arise under the ATS or under state law, but under the FSIA itself.
The recording industry (RIAA) and the actors’ union (SAGAFTRA) have been the leading proponents of such a law. What about state laws? Existing state laws on digital replicas are not preempted, including the new laws that will come online January 1 in California, New York, and Illinois.
The plaintiff also brought criminal charges against the defendant’s son arising from this incident and the defendant’s son pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). In the United States, the original tortfeasor is liable for such injuries caused by negligent rescues.
The plaintiff also brought criminal charges against the defendant’s son arising from this incident and the defendant’s son pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). In the United States, the original tortfeasor is liable for such injuries caused by negligent rescues.
Doe , 20-1374 , concerns whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which incorporates its enforcement mechanisms) provides a disparate-impact cause of action for plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination, and whether such claims can be based on facially neutral health-plan terms.
It appears that the two relisted petitions asking the court to decide whether laws that limit participation on womens and girls sports teams based on sex assigned at birth violates the 14th Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 are now being held for the transgender-care case United States v. Relisted after the Sept.
The plaintiff also brought criminal charges against the defendant’s son arising from this incident and the defendant’s son pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). In the United States, the original tortfeasor is liable for such injuries caused by negligent rescues.
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. The cities also have filed a motion to amend their complaints to withdraw federal common law public nuisance claims that they added after the district court denied remand.
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