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 Supreme Court has previously held that private plaintiffs may secure a particular judicial remedy for the violation of spending clause statutes only if the defendant that received federal funds is on notice that it exposes itself to that remedy by accepting the funds. In Thursday’s ruling in Cummings v.
Though some justices seemed receptive to the availability of emotional distress damages, questions from the bench also suggested concern about the size of emotional distress awards and the absence of explicitly defined remedies in the statutes Cummings invoked. Cummings’ lawyer, Andrew Rozynski, and Colleen Sinzdak, arguing for the U.S.
Supreme Courtruled that comity requires an assessment of the interests of the foreign nation involved and the requesting nation. [3] and English courts do not give effect to foreign blocking statutes, like the French Blocking Statute, but have ruled in favor of disclosure of documents and information.
Sonner sought restitution for a past harm but failed to demonstrate that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. The issue was whether federal courts can award equitable relief when state law permits it, but an adequate legal remedy exists. Decision The courtruled in favor of Bachmann, granting her qualified immunity.
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