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
The US Supreme Court Thursday ruled Thursday that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in a private lawsuit to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. This decision clarifies what damages are available to individuals who sue under federal anti-discrimination statutes.
Mastering numbers in legal writing is essential for anyone looking to excel in the legal profession. Numbers play a critical role in legal documents, briefs, and citations, and their correct usage can make the difference between clarity and confusion. Format numbers according to legal standards.
Further, where the fraud was related to the purchase of plaintiff’s home, and the jury awarded plaintiff the amount she paid for the home in compensatorydamages, that award was affirmed. On appeal, the verdict for compensatorydamages was affirmed, but the punitive award was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Featuring the reports from the most recent IACL/AIDC General Congress in Asuncin, the volume provides the reader with unique insights by renowned legal scholars into the practices of 14 national jurisdictions ( inter alia China, Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.) Buxbaum offers a great deal of valuable guidance and insights.
It evidently has not stopped claimants from seeking enforcement of punitive damage awards in other civil law legal systems. Concluding the first panel (and day) of the conference, Rachel Mulheron (Queen Mary University) shared her insights into “Punitive Damages in English Law”. However, Jovanovi?
From a practical perspective, the court’s resolution of Cummings might well affect the availability of emotional distress damages under additional federal anti-discrimination laws — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.
Premier Rehab Keller , a lawsuit filed in federal court in 2018 by Jane Cummings, who has been deaf since birth and is legally blind. She sought compensatorydamages for “humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress.”
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. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw.
In both cases where the testimony according to James is damning, the incidents fall within the two-year statute of limitations that applies to misdemeanors in New York State. . “It “I don’t believe a criminal prosecution can rely on the report.
The magistrate judge concluded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further found that the plaintiffs conceded that venue in Boulder County was not proper for San Miguel under this statute. WildEarth Guardians v. Mountain Coal Co. , 1:20-cv-01342 (D. Coverage of the oral argument is available here.
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