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
Provided the employer prevailed in a lawsuit, they could have sought attorney’s fees, compensatorydamages, and exemplary damages of $5,000 for each day a defendant acted in violation of the statute. ” Second, North Carolina argued that the case presented important questions of First Amendment law.
In such situations, the owner of the surface estate has rights to use the surface of the land, such as for constructing buildings, but does not own the underlying mineral resources (e.g., a tort claim), the maximum amount of damages recoverable as compensatorydamages is per person and not per occurrence.
83 — and where the Attorney General has knowledge of, or is in actual or constructive possession of, such evidence — what duty, if any, does the Attorney General have to acknowledge or disclose that evidence to the petitioner? The appellate court concluded the Rule doesn’t limit attorney fees, disagreeing with Lafferty v.
This has long been a controversial element under the FCA because it was largely the result of judicial not congressional construction. compensatorydamages and $300,000.00 punitive damages. 47 U.S.C. § We discussed this issue in relation to the Sixth Circuit’s arguments in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment.
The federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas denied a steel mill owner’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring construction of a gas pipeline that will cross the plaintiff’s property. Federal Court Denied Preliminary Injunction in Steel Mill Owner’s Pipeline Challenge. The owner asserted that the U.S. BP America Inc. ,
The Tenth Circuit ordered the injunction to remain in place pending consideration of the environmental groups’ appeal of a district court order that declined to vacate mining lease modifications that authorized road construction in the Sunset Roadless Area. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw. Sierra Club v.
After Denying Motions to Stop Construction Activities in National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska Federal Court Enjoined Certain Work for Two Weeks. On February 6, the court issued an injunction on certain construction activities through February 20 or until the Ninth Circuit rules on any motions for injunction pending appeal. 2019-398 (Vt.
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