Remove Compensatory Damages Remove Construction Remove Statute
article thumbnail

US Supreme Court declines North Carolina appeal in undercover investigations case

JURIST

The challenged statute, N.C. The text of the statute covered actions such as unauthorized removal of data or documents, capturing of images, “intentionally” placing unattended recording devices on employer premises or substantially interfering with the employer’s ownership of the property.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court takes three cases and depublishes three opinions; dissenting votes in four review denials

At the Lectern

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.

Court 49
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Australia High Court Delivers Major Blow to Free Speech In Defamation Ruling

JonathanTurley

The statute defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitive damages. 47 U.S.C. § 47 U.S.C. §

Tort 43
article thumbnail

October 2020 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. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.

Court 72
article thumbnail

November 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw. Sierra Club v.

article thumbnail

February 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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.