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
Alianza Americas Tuesday filed a class-action lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on behalf of nearly 50 migrants flown from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. The case is in federal court in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
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.
The court described the case as “an unprecedented case for any court, let alone a state court trial judge,” but concluded that it was “still a tort case” and “based exclusively on state law causes of action,” primarily failures to disclose, failures to warn, and deceptive marketing. Citing Massachusetts v. Chevron Corp.
IBAMA “present quite different typology and structure, specialized instruments and distinct political-legal approaches, in addition to the fact that their object, cause of action and demands do not coincide.” Brazil and Federal Prosecutor Office v. The court further noted that IEA v. EPA , Urgenda Foundation v. Federation of Pakistan.
filed suit against Costco in a New York federal court , accusing the Issaquah, Washington-headquartered retail chain of trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair business practices, among other causes of action, and seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages.
A plastic surgery group filed a cross-complaint against the petitioner alleging causes of action arising from the purchase of a product the petitioner manufactured. Division Three will now address in a written opinion the merits of the writ petition. ” Here are the petition for review , answer , and reply.
The actions of third parties often cut off liability as a matter of proximate causation, though courts have held that you can be liable for creating circumstances where crimes or intentional torts are foreseeable. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the actions against the manufacturers.
1500 Massachusetts Avenue. The Massachusetts case of Smith v. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the actions against the manufacturers. Tauton High School District.
1500 Massachusetts Avenue. While a lawsuit is unlikely, it would certainly be an interesting — and not unwarranted — claim. __ Tauton High School District The Massachusetts case of Smith v. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn.
Nantucket residents filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts alleging that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s environmental review of the Vineyard Wind 1 offshore wind project did not comply with NEPA. Haaland , No. 1:21-cv-02317 (D.D.C., Nantucket Residents Challenged Federal Approvals of Offshore Wind Project.
Maui asserted causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. According to the judge, the claims are not justiciable because they allege “an overly broad and unquantifiable number of actions and inactions on the part of the Defendants.”
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, Consumer Federation of America, and Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants filed a petition for review in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the U.S. Groups Challenged “Circumventing” of Efficiency Standards for Dishwashers.
The District of Utah held that the lease suspensions merely maintained the status quo and therefore were not major federal actions subject to NEPA; the conservation groups therefore lacked standing. Massachusetts High Court Upheld Transmission Line Approval. Living Rivers v. Hoffman , No. 4:19-cv-00057 (D. Utah June 21, 2021).
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