Patently O

MARCH 25, 2021

2017) refocused attention on a required nexus between the the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the cause of action. The decision suggested to many that defendant’s connections should have a causal-link with the cause of action. ” Quoting Reiter (1979). The “or” has meaning.

Court 63

Court Cause of Action Manufacturing Litigation 63

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

DECEMBER 11, 2020

The companies filed their brief on November 16, arguing that the Fourth Circuit erred by concluding that it was limited to reviewing removal based on the federal-officer removal statute. In Minnesota v. the defendants filed their opposition to Minnesota’s remand motion (November 9). Chevron Corp. 20-cv-1636 (D. A20-1513 (Minn.

Court 59

Court Government Litigation Litigating 59

SCOTUSBlog

JULY 1, 2021

20-219 , asks whether the compensatory damages available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the statutes that incorporate its remedies, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act , include compensation for emotional distress. Fillmore County, Minnesota , 20-7028. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C. ,

Compensatory Damages 101

Compensatory Damages Government Court Cause of Action 101

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

SEPTEMBER 10, 2021

The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute , No.

Litigation 40

Litigation Litigating Court Laws 40

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JANUARY 13, 2021

1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Minnesota v. Delaware v. BP America Inc. ,

Court 52

Court Government Technology Assisted Review Litigation 52

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

FEBRUARY 4, 2025

The second lawsuit was filed more than two years later by California, Oregon, and Minnesota. Trump asserted the following causes of action: Violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Ultra vires action. In both cases, the U.S. Violation of the Take Care Clause. This case was also assigned to Judge Moss.

Statute 59

Statute Litigation Litigating Court 59

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JULY 2, 2021

The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” Minnesota Court of Appeals Upheld State Approvals for Enbridge Crude Oil Replacement Pipeline. Living Rivers v.

Court 49

Court Litigation Litigating Statute 49