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
A Colorado federal judge on Tuesday ruled that an engineering consulting firm is liable to telecommunications company Lumen Technologies for damages caused by a subcontractor's faulty structural analysis, but said she couldn't yet rule on whether Florida law and a two-year statute of limitation barred Lumen's claims against the firm.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act is a jurisdictional rule or a claims-processing rule and whether the government can prosecute wire fraud under a “right to control” theory of property. In Wilkins v. In the U.S.
Panoramic Health faces a wrongful termination suit filed Thursday in Colorado federal court by its former assistant general counsel who claims she was fired after raising concerns about its alleged noncompliance with federal anti-kickback statutes and regulations over its federally funded kidney care contracting program.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, the viability of certain types of disability-based claims under three federal statutes. The case is Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado v. Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado v.
Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, even though it requires out-of-state corporations registering to do business within the state to consent to all-purpose (general) personal jurisdiction. This post is by Maggie Gardner, a professor of law at Cornell Law School.
To eliminate the financial burden that reservists face when called to active duty at pay rates below their federal civilian salaries, Congress enacted the differential pay statute, 5 U.S.C. Eagle County, Colorado : The case involves how to interpret the Courts prior decision in Department of Transportation v. ” In Adams v.
And it is true that other states continue to look at various reform measures along these same lines, including Colorado, North Carolina and Illinois. This year, it opened the proposal to public comment , with the expectation that the state’s supreme court will vote on it sometime in 2022.
The court said the statutory language authorized courts to grant stays and that EPA’s reading of the statute “would have the perverse result of empowering this court to act when the agency denies a stay but not when it chooses to grant one.”
And it is true that other states continue to look at various reform measures along these same lines, including Colorado, North Carolina and Illinois. This year, it opened the proposal to public comment , with the expectation that the state’s supreme court will vote on it sometime in 2022.
Meanwhile the Fifth Circuit enforced a forum selection clause in an insurance contract choosing British Virgin Island courts despite evidence that the claims stood little chance in those courts. Bowman , which addresses the scope of federal criminal statutes, into its current extraterritoriality framework.
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. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.
City of Englewood, New Jersey , 23-1189 Issues : (1) Whether the City of Englewoods speech-free buffer zones, including zones outside an abortion clinic, violate the First Amendment; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hill v. Relisted after the Nov. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.) Coalition Life v. Relisted after the Nov. 10 and Jan. 10 and Jan.
The court also granted motions to strike the state law claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. Environmental Groups Filed Lawsuit Challenging Colorado River Diversion Project and Alleging Insufficient Analysis of Climate Change Impact on Water Availability.
The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Tenth Circuit Ordered Coal Company to Stop Preparation for Mining in Colorado Roadless Area.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed , holding that because a federal agency now has the final say over how the private horse-racing authority implements the federal statute, the amended law did not impermissibly delegate authority to a private entity. In a one-paragraph order, the justices granted the authoritys request. Franklin v.
These cases reflect the judiciarys ongoing role in interpreting federal statutes, balancing individual rights against governmental power, and resolving contentious social and political questions. El Paso County, Colorado (CA10) This case was brought by Ms. Among them are Griffith v. Griffith v.
A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Colorado recommended that the court grant an underground coal mine operator’s motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act citizen suit that alleged the mine required a Prevention of Significant Deterioration construction permit and a Title V operating permit. 1:20-cv-03817 (D.D.C.
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