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
According to the appeals court, holding otherwise would give businesses a blueprint for using corporate formalities to insulate their infringement from financial consequences. Supreme CourtsDecision The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court went on to find that background principles of corporate law support its holding.
Supreme Court held that a case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) counts as a final proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Courtsdecision was unanimous. Supreme CourtsDecision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 9-0.
Supreme Court held that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not accrue for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2401(a) ’s default six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U.
By contrast, if a federal official accepts a prohibited gratuity, federal gratuities law sets a 2-year maximum prison sentence pursuant to §201(c). As enacted in 1984, the statute at issue in the case, 18 U.S.C. Justice Kavanaugh wrote: The bribery statute for federal officials, §201(b), uses the term “corruptly.”
Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a federal aggravated identity theft statute. Because the crux of Durbin’s overbilling was inflating the value of services actually provided, and the patient’s means of identification was an ancillary part of the Medicaid billing process, the statute was not violated. In Durbin v.
By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
The statute imposes a maximum $10,000 penalty for nonwillful violations of the law. As explained by the Supreme Court, FBAR reports are designed to help the government trace funds that may be used for illicit purposes and identify unreported income that may be subject to taxation. .
Supreme Court’sDecision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 7-2, holding that because §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.
The Supreme Court went on to find that the CFPB’s funding statute contains the requisite features of a congressional appropriation. Supreme Court Upholds CFPB Funding Scheme appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. The post U.S.
Given that the United States, as a sovereign, is generally immune from suits seeking money damages unless Congress chooses to waive that immunity, the Court’s “clear statement” rule allows a suit against the government only when “the language of the statute” is “unmistakably clear” in allowing it.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the parties offered very different interpretations of §1415( l ). After concluding that §1415( l ) did not preclude Perez’s ADA lawsuit, it remanded the matter back to the lower court. Perez, but for a great many children with disabilities and their parents.”
Supreme Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. The Court did not address when copyright infringement claims accrue with regard to the statute of limitations. We hold that no such limit on damages exists.”
Supreme Court held that alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). The Courtsdecision was unanimous. Supreme CourtsDecision The Supreme Court disagreed.
As separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution, Indian tribes have the same common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign governments—unless and until Congress unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate that immunity. Please check back for updates.
Supreme Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a claim-processing rule rather than a bright-line rule that constrains a court’s jurisdiction. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the Court. In Wilkins v. United States , 598 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S.
89 (1990), while the Court presumes that federal statutes of limitations are subject to equitable tolling, this presumption may be rebutted if equitable tolling is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The post SCOTUS Issues First Opinion of the Term appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
A private attorney tasked with leading the investigation concluded that Gonzalez had likely violated a Texas anti-tampering statute that, among other things, prohibits a person from intentionally “remov[ing]. The Court remanded the case back to the lower courts to assess whether Gonzalez’s evidence suffices to satisfy the Nieves exception.
“Therefore, if the common law were to apply to the Disputed Instruments, then the abandoned proceeds would escheat inequitably solely to the State of incorporation, just like the money orders expressly referenced in the statute.”
All this “complexity and uncertainty” would “‘breed[] litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it.’” The Court next turned to Flowers argument that the §1 exemption would sweep too broadly without an implied transportation-industry requirement. goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce.”
In such actions where the Commission elects to institute administrative proceedings to address statutory violations, it typically delegates the initial adjudication to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with authority to resolve motions, hold a hearing, and then issue a decision. Saul , 593 U.S.
18–3–602(1)(c), a Colorado statute making it unlawful to “[r]epeatedly. The post Supreme Court Clarifies First Amendment Test for True Threats appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter. Counterman’s messages put C.W. in fear and upended her daily existence: C.W. eventually contacted the authorities.
According to the Court, when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The post SCOTUS Clarifies Bruen in Upholding Federal Gun Law appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
. “By doing so, Congress cut from the statute the strongest textual hook counseling against the outcome in Strang,” she wrote. ” The post Supreme Court Holds Debts Incurred by Fraud Are Ineligible for Bankruptcy Relief appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with Norfolk Southern, holding that the Pennsylvania law violated Due Process. Supreme Court’sDecision The Supreme Court reversed. ” The post Supreme Court Upholds Corporate Personal Jurisdiction Laws appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
9] This approach is that a Nigerian court cannot assume jurisdiction where the cause of action arose in one State, or another foreign country. This approach is that more than one court can have jurisdiction in matters of conflict of laws where the cause of action is connected to such States. 2] (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 535. [3]
In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized that Section 1983 provides a cause of action against “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or us- age, of any State ” deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right.
50-5-85’s inclusion of “other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel” makes the statute impermissibly vague. In a 2-1 panel decision, the court also found that the was overly broad. In so ruling, the appellate court reversed a January 2019 district courtdecision.
Supreme Court held that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the use of physical force against another person within the meaning of18 U.S.C. Facts of the Case The federal statute at issue, Title 18 U.S.C. In support of its decision, the Court cited United States v.
Share Tired of reading jargon-filled law review articles with hundreds of footnotes? The perfect antidote is Painting ConstitutionalLaw: Xavier Cortada’s Images of Constitutional Rights , edited by Professors M.C. Mirow and Howard Wasserman. The numbers on either side of the chair are also significant.
In the past 20 years, the court has announced substantive constitutionallaw, pleading requirements, and timeliness rules that make it harder to win such arguments. 1983 , the iconic civil rights statute permitting plaintiffs (including prisoners) to sue state officers for infringing constitutional rights.
There is nothing in the provision to distinguish, as the courts below did, between transfers causing significant disadvantages and transfers causing not-so-significant ones. To demand “significance” is to add words—and significant words, as it were—to the statute Congress enacted.
Supreme Court held that death row inmate Rodney Reed did not wait too long to seek DNA testing of the evidence in his case. According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.
In other words, to enforce Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality, courts must apply the law unequally.” ” The case could further develop discrimination precedent two years after the Supreme Courtsdecision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College. In reviewing her claim, the U.S.
Supreme Court’sDecision By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court agreed with the states that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. The Court first addressed the threshold issue of standing, concluding that at least Missouri had the right to challenge the student loan forgiveness program. “The
SYMPOSIUM: Fundamental Rights and Private International Law Ralf Michaels: Einleitung zum Symposium: Grundrechte und IPR im Lichte der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Kinderehenbekämpfungsgesetz, 707–713, DOI: [link] [Open Access: CC BY-SA 4.0]
The States of Texas and Louisiana claim that the Guidelines contravene two federal statutes that they contend require the arrest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison ( 8 U.S.C. The Constitution affords federal courts considerable power, but it does not establish ‘government by lawsuit,’” Gorsuch wrote.
In Barnette , the Court held that the State of West Virginia’s efforts to compel schoolchildren to salute the Nation’s flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance “invad[ed] the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment. Today, this court shrinks.” to reserve from all official control.” Until today.
The court’s other citation is to a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in J ane L. In that case, the court reversed a lower courtdecision imposing sanctions for making this argument as a frivolous claim. Bangerter , 61 F.3d 3d 1505, 1514-15 (10th Cir.
The statute tasks the Department of Education with “issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability” to “effectuate” Title IX’s antidiscrimination mandate. ” The post SCOTUS Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Title IX Rule Granting Protections to LBGTQ Students appeared first on ConstitutionalLaw Reporter.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that 921(a)(3)(A) categorically does not reach weapon parts kits regardless of completeness or ease of assembly, and that 921(a)(3)(B) reaches only finished frames and receivers. Supreme CourtsDecision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 7-2. has two requirements.
Patel argued before an Immigration Judge that he had mistakenly checked the “citizen” box on the state application and thus lacked the subjective intent necessary to violate the federal statute. Conversely, Patel’s interpretation would read the word “regarding” out of the statute entirely, according to the majority.
Three Republican senators – Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas – write that a precedent can be unworkable due to “a history of confusion in the lower courts, an unstable pattern of Supreme Courtdecisions, and a persistent lack of judicially manageable standards.”
With the rise of the Trump-Republican Party, this traction – the ability to argue within a shared expectation of commitment to rule of law and justice – has completely evaporated. Last term’s Supreme Courtdecisions are just the most recent high-profile evidence for this. Heidi Li Feldman. HeidiLiFeldman. ·. Heidi Li Feldman.
There is plenty of commentary making the rounds regarding yesterdays 5-4 Supreme Courtdecision confirming that of course a judge can issue a Temporary Restraining Order to maintain the status quo and require USAID pay out the money that it owes to contractors for work already done. for the Court). United States 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