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
Share Confirming expectations, the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously denied Mississippi’s claim that Tennessee is stealing its groundwater. For this state-level version of a trespass, Mississippi sought over $600 million in damages. Facts as developed so far indicate that Mississippi will be unable to meet that burden.
Share The first oral argument of the Supreme Court’s new term, Mississippi v. Tennessee , dealt with Mississippi’s claim that Memphis, Tennessee, is stealing Mississippi’s groundwater. Coghlan argued that the groundwater extraction created a cone of depression that physically entered into Mississippi.
Share Mississippi v. The court’s decision could fundamentally restructure interstate groundwater law in the United States for decades — or the case could be dismissed immediately on the grounds that Mississippi has failed to allege the proper cause of action. Like most original jurisdiction water cases, Mississippi v.
Issue : Whether the subjective element of the “sham litigation” exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity may be met by an inference from a finding that a challenged lawsuit was objectively baseless, even without evidence that the antitrust defendant actually believed the suit lacked merit or was indifferent to the outcome. Mississippi.
Then there is a case on the court’s original docket , Mississippi v. In government-facing litigation, the government’s petition in Becerra v. We finish with good old private litigation. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C. , The solicitor general again recommends the court grant review. Tennessee , 22 Orig. CVS Pharmacy Inc.
there is not a single thing that doesnt require litigation to challenge and enjoin. The third cause of action explains how it also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (ACA) as a vehicle for violating the Privacy Act. They are all worth watching.
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