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
Natural Resources Defense Council , the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable. A jury ruled for Murray and awarded him back pay and compensatorydamages, but the U.S. Share Nearly 40 years ago, in Chevron v.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested to Waggoner that most lawsuits would still be able to go forward even if a request for nominal damages, standing alone, was not enough to keep a case alive. solicitor general who argued on behalf of the federal government in support of the students.
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.” compensatorydamages and $300,000.00 punitive damages. 47 U.S.C. §
The ACA (in Section 1557) bars federally funded health care programs from discriminating in violation of certain civil rights statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act. The same is true, in effect, of other antidiscrimination statutes, such as Title IX. Cummings would have the court answer “yes.”
Share This week we highlight petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether an award of punitive damages that doubles the compensatorydamages can comport with due process and how a defendant can prove ineffective assistance of counsel in rejecting a plea offer. After a jury trial in the U.S.
She asked the justices to weigh in “to ensure that people of faith have the freedom to live according to their beliefs about marriage, and to bar governments from mandating which sacred events merit celebration.” She sought compensatorydamages for “humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress.” Supreme Court.
The relevant statute provides the possession crime occurs when there’s been a violation of “an express condition of probation,” but a form Judicial Council instruction that was given to the jury says an element of the crime is that “ a court had ordered that the defendant not own or possess a firearm.”
solicitor general on cases the federal government isn’t involved in, the government not infrequently delivers its invited amicus briefs just in time for the court’s last scheduled conference. So it is no surprise to see that three of the new relists involve invited government briefs on a range of subjects. Cummings v.
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.
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. California v. 19-17480 (9th Cir. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw.
Circuit held that the federalism canon—requiring that Congress use “exceedingly clear language” to alter the balance of power between the federal government and the states—did not support an interpretation limiting the best system of emission reduction to measures applied at and to the source. Third, the D.C. WildEarth Guardians v.
involving whether punitive damages that are twice compensatorydamages, and fall within a state’s statutory punitive damages cap, are constitutionally excessive. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in concluding that the Eighth and Fifth Amendments permit the government to execute the petitioner, Wesley Coonce ?
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