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 federal district court'sdecision to hold a credit union liable for $558,000 in compensatorydamages over a scammer's use of its services disrupts the framework of fund transfer law and jeopardizes the day-to-day feasibility of the nation's fund-transfer systems, an amicus brief filed in the Fourth Circuit argues.
Supreme Court held that a deaf student seeking compensatorydamages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.
In its decision, the Court took the uncommon step of sua sponte certifying a question of state law (here, Ohio law) to a state supreme supreme court (the Ohio Supreme Court). Who better to know the answer to that question than the Ohio Supreme Court, which, under Erie Railroad Co. Tompkins , 304 U.S. Lehman Bros.
Assume that you successfully obtained a favourable judgment from a foreign court that orders the losing party to pay punitive damages in addition to compensatorydamages. Could the judgment be enforced in Japan where punitive damages are considered as contrary to public policy? Introduction.
Please note that in the German case , the Saarbrücken Regional Court of Germany refused to recognize and enforce a Chinese judgment on the ground of lack of reciprocity, despite the fact that, as early as 2013, China confirmed that there was reciprocity between the two countries.
Federal Court in Rhode Island Allowed Failure-to-Adapt Claims to Proceed. The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island for the most part denied a motion to dismiss a citizen suit asserting that Shell Oil Products US and other defendants (Shell) failed to prepare a terminal in Providence for the impacts of climate change.
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