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 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on Tuesday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects non-violent offenders from federal firearm bans. The case resulted from Bryan Range’s appeal from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Hardiman authored the opinion of the court.
23-1141 took place in March 2025 before the US Supreme Court. Among the claims for relief are: Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass.
Both of those concerns seem to have coalesced in the arrest of a Connecticut high school student accused of posting racist comments about a classmate. The case could present an important court test for this country in resisting the criminalization of speech that we have seen in Europe. The Connecticut arrest comes as the U.S.
A Connecticut' state court judge must relinquish jurisdiction over two lawsuits claiming that generic versions of the heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer because state statutes do not subject entities with foreign business registrations to the auspices of Constitution State judges, a pharmaceutical industry attorney argued at a hearing Monday morning. (..)
There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided a trademark damages question that has long divided courts across the country. Since Fossil did not act willfully, the District Court for the District of Connecticut refused to award Romag the profits that Fossil had earned as a result of the trademark infringement. Looking Forward.
Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) exemption for transportation workers in interstate commerce applies to transportation workers regardless of whether they work in the transportation industry. Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court unanimously reversed. “A In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St.,
courts cannot exercise personal jurisdiction and thus cannot apply U.S. courts have been unable to apply the law to foreign companies because they have concluded that those companies lack “minimum contacts” with the United States. Supreme Court has held that U.S. courts limit the extraterritorial application of U.S.
Alsup in the federal district court in San Francisco will hear oral argument on motions to dismiss filed in City of Oakland v. One set of California cases – filed by San Mateo County, Marin County and Imperial City – was removed by defendants to federal court, then remanded to state court, based on Judge Vince C. BP P.L.C. ,
Represent Clients in Court - Some attorneys request their paralegal be present in court to take notes and keep exhibits organized. Canon 9 - A paralegal must do all other things incidental, necessary, or expedient for the attainment of the ethics and responsibilities as defined by statute or rule of court.
A recent Court of Appeals decision highlights the potential for any internet company to be liable for a deceptive advertising campaign that it had a hand in orchestrating – even if the company itself does not create the advertising material. The decision in this case, FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC , comes from the U.S.
Federal Court Found Flaws in New Climate Change Analysis for Wyoming Oil and Gas Leases. The federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that the U.S. Second, the court concluded that BLM should have calculated and considered total greenhouse emissions, instead of merely relying on comparisons of yearly emission rates.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The court therefore found that the stay was unauthorized and vacated it. FEATURED CASE. A divided D.C. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS.
Connecticut might be zoning in on affordable housing. I know long-arm statutes are a thing, but Missouri's attempt to ban abortions that happen in other states would make the court that wrote Wickard blush. [ . * The ties that bind: Giving birth in Indiana is making a change for the humane. Woop Woop! [ CT Mirror ]. *
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. The Supreme Court is back. On Monday, the court granted nine petitions from the enormous number that built up over the summer. A short explanation of relists is available here. First up is Buffington v.
Several states, including Connecticut, California, District of Columbia , Massachusetts , and Nevada, have adopted or incorporated the Code in their statutes or regulations. Related Stories California Dreaming Part 4: The Court Tells California to Keep on Dreaming Is The Skinny Label Back From the Dead?
A federal appeals court in Louisiana agreed with Texan Zackey Rahimi, that the law, 18 U.S.C. § Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit “endangers victims of domestic violence, their families, police officers, and the public.” 2020 civil protective order entered against him in a state court in Texas. The order stemmed from a Dec.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part a dismissal of a challenge to Public Act 21-6 , Connecticut’s repeal of religious exemptions from state immunization requirements for “schoolchildren, college and university students, and childcare participants.” Circuit Judge Joseph F.
That is the allegation of Waterbury, Connecticut police who say that Jason A. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression. See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleged negligence and assault.
That is the allegation of Waterbury, Connecticut police who say that Jason A. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression. See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleged negligence and assault.
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.
Under that statute, the company typically would have been able to recover the payments either from the IRS (to whom the money was paid) or from the owners (who benefitted from the payments). To say that Congress hasn’t specifically solved this problem when it wrote a statute that specifically mentions Section 544 might seem like a bit much.
In my view, the court missed the mark, in the main. But in this blog post, I unpack an aspect of the decision where I think it was more of a mixed bag: the court’s treatment of the international air pollution provision of the Clean Air Act, Section 115. On this point, the court was absolutely correct. Alternatively, the U.S.
Additionally, travel distance is a known barrier to care that jeopardizes health, which the court recognized in 2016 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Thirteen have “trigger laws” enacted after 1973 that forbid doctors from providing abortions upon the court overturning Roe , half of which have sprung into effect. Hellerstedt.
Kevin Kelly and his girlfriend Regina Jones went to a Halloween party at the Rustic Café in Old Lyme, Connecticut in 2018. On June 15, 2023, the court issued the ultimate judgment not only on the torts claims but perhaps the state of our politics. They were dressed as Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. Six Flags St.
New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey filed suit, arguing that the new law violated the Constitution — specifically, Article I, Section 8 , and the 10th and 16th Amendments — because it interfered with states’ sovereign taxing authority by unduly coercing them to change their sovereign tax policies and by denying them equal sovereignty.
Kevin Kelly and his girlfriend Regina Jones went to a Halloween party at the Rustic Café in Old Lyme, Connecticut into 2018. On June 15, 2023, the court issued the ultimate judgment not only on the torts claims but perhaps the state of our politics. That is the allegation of Waterbury, Connecticut police who say that Jason A.
The litigation over last year’s lettuce recall has only just started due to the statute of limitations. The cases from injuries last year are just now being filed under the statute of limitations, but it has been another bumper crop of Thanksgiving torts. Some things are happily left out of the courts.
In Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies, Supreme Court Held that Appellate Review of Remand Order Extends to All Grounds for Removal. The Court declined to review the companies’ other grounds for removal, finding that the “wiser course” was to allow the Fourth Circuit to address them in the first instance.
Federal Court Denied Oakland and San Francisco Motions to Return Climate Change Nuisance Cases to State Court; Found Federal Common Law of Nuisance Could Apply, Despite AEP v. Connecticut ; Requested “Tutorial” on Climate Change. The court dispensed with the cities’ three primary arguments for remanding the cases.
Several states and private plaintiffs went to federal court to challenge the plan, and in February 2016 the Supreme Court, dividing 5-4, put the plan on hold before it could go into effect. Two coal-mining companies and 20 Republican-led states, including West Virginia and North Dakota, asked the Supreme Court to review the D.C.
Louisiana Federal Court Blocked Biden Administration “Pause” on New Oil and Gas Leases. The federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the Biden administration from implementing a “Pause” on new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of New York City’s lawsuit seeking climate change damages from oil companies. The Second Circuit’s decision largely followed the reasoning of the district court’s 2018 decision. Connecticut , 564 U.S. Creative Commons, NYC Manhattan Skyline. FEATURED CASE.
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The Supreme Court reversed an intermediate appellate court’s decision affirming a superior court determination that the defendant could not present a necessity defense.
The Attorney Generals (AGs) for Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Washington DC and Wisconsin filed the complaint in a Massachusetts District Court.
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