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
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.
In 2016, she sought physical therapy services for back pain from respondent Premier Rehab, a company that operates rehabilitation facilities in Texas and receives federal funds. The same is true, in effect, of other antidiscrimination statutes, such as Title IX. Cummings primarily communicates in American Sign Language.
20-219 , asks whether the compensatorydamages available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the statutes that incorporate its remedies, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act , include compensation for emotional distress. The solicitor general recommends the court grant review. Cummings v. 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. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw. 12, 2020). BP America Inc. ,
Circuit also concluded that two petitioners—Texas Public Policy Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute—lacked organizational standing to challenge EPA’s authority to promulgate the ACE Rule. The magistrate judge concluded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. Finally, 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. Texas , involving whether certain Native American tribes’ gaming operations are subject to Texas regulations. Texas , 20-493. Boardman v.
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