Remove Cause of Action Remove Minnesota Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Ford v. Montana: Supreme Court on the Scope of Personal Jurisdiction

Patently O

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
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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 57
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Mopping up final business with 14 new relists

SCOTUSBlog

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. ,

article thumbnail

January 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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
article thumbnail

September 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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.

article thumbnail

July 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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 48