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 heard arguments Monday on whether Indian Health Services (IHS) should be reimbursed for “contract support costs” associated with third parties, such as Medicare and Medicaid. In contrast, a Tenth Circuit decision found that third-party expenditures could fall under contract support costs.
The Arizona Statute of Limitations Applicable to Collection Lawsuits and Non-Judicial Trustee’s Foreclosure Sales of Real Property, article by Larry O. 2007) (a cause of action “accrues” each time a party fails to perform as required by the contract) and Ortiz v. Folks, Folks Hess, PLLC (1/2021). Short answer: No. 265, 270, 418 P.3d
For the readers who decided to continue past my opening paragraph, Great Lakes Insurance falls within the admiralty power of the federal courts, which authorizes the federal judiciary to articulate a federal common law for maritime contracts. Great Lakes Insurance involves a maritime insurance contract.
The argument revealed a bench deeply skeptical of the uncertainty maritime insurance contracts would face under a lower-court decision limiting the enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in those contracts. The contract, like most American marine insurance contracts, called for the application of New York law.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its latest decision on foreign forum selection clauses and cruise ship contracts. The cruise line moved to dismiss the case on the basis of a forum selection clause in the ticket mandating that all disputes be resolved by a court in Genoa, Italy. contract a provision limiting.
A US federal judge in Florida ruled on Thursday that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) impending ban on non-compete clauses in employment contracts is likely unlawful and enjoined it. The judge concluded that the relevant statute here, Section 6(g) of the FTC Act, “falls short” of doing so.
The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously held that a homeless person’s vehicle automatically qualifies as a homestead without the need for a declaration and that the impoundment of that vehicle and associated costs constitute excessive fines—a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Although neither party to the contract is from New York, the insurance contract selected New York law, as these contracts typically do. The contract calls for New York law, so the justices have to decide whether federal courts should respect that contract. The first is the 1955 decision in Wilburn Boat Co.
(Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images) One of the quickest lessons you pick up in law school is that the path to knowing the law doesn’t end at finding a line in the Constitution or a statute and reading it aloud to anyone who would hear it. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Alana C.
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.
The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether parties can contractually agree to shorten the statute of limitations period for bringing a copyright infringement claim. Normally, the statute of limitations for a copyright violation is three years. In an unpublished opinion in the case, Evox Productions, LLC v.
Share The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 against a plaintiff seeking emotional distress damages for alleged violations of certain federal anti-discrimination laws. Premier Rehab Keller PLLC , the court applied the contract-law inquiry to hold that Cummings could not recover damages for emotional distress.
In Nigerian judicial parlance, we have become accustomed to the principle that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even at the Nigerian Supreme Court – the highest court of the land – for the first time. [1] On this basis the defendant/appellant argued that the court of Yobe State had exclusive jurisdiction.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts that they have already taken. The question came to the court in the case of James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Ind.,
The issue is whether the insurer can even put the question to the court for consideration. The insurer’s argument is simple, relying directly on the statute’s reference to a “party in interest.” The post Court faces dispute over insurer’s rights in asbestos bankruptcy plan appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
They operate as contracts between the federal government and the recipient of funds; any private person suing to enforce the terms of that contract is a third-party beneficiary, who is generally barred from enforcing contractual obligations. HHC argued that spending clause enactments are unique.
Share On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a VA benefits decision that was based on an agency regulation in effect at the time the decision was rendered does not constitute “clear and unmistakable error” even if the agency regulation is later deemed to conflict with the text of the relevant benefits statute.
AI-powered tools can now sift through vast amounts of legal data in a fraction of the time it would take a human, to identify relevant cases, statutes, and precedents with remarkable accuracy. In 2025, these technologies will revolutionize legal research, document review, and case predictions. But the impact of AI goes beyond just speed.
Kirschenbaum — Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act does not prohibit pharmaceutical manufacturers from imposing conditions on the distribution of discounted drugs to covered entities in the program. By Sophia R. Gaulkin & Alan M.
Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. Facts of the Case As the Court explained in its opinion, Federal and state law distinguish between two kinds of payments to public officials—bribes and gratuities. As enacted in 1984, the statute at issue in the case, 18 U.S.C. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Snyder’s conviction.
Where the trial court took judicial notice of items from the court case underlying a tort action for invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, it did not convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the claims based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
The Supreme Court’s opinion Thursday in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association firmly rejected an attack on state statutes that protect pharmacies from the prescription-reimbursement intermediaries that health-insurance providers use to administer their prescription-drug programs.
In May 2022, a divided Supreme Court put the Texas law on hold while the challenges to the law continued in the lower courts. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later rejected those challenges and upheld the law, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit barred the state from enforcing most of the law.
Talevski did not reveal a Supreme Court ready to reconsider or overrule a line of cases allowing private suits for damages in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Robbins centered the fundamental error in the court’s precedent allowing individuals to enforce spending clause enactments through Section 1983. of Marion County v.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 21, 2021 in the pending assignor estoppel case of Minerva Surgical Inc. The basic idea is that an inventor who signs the oath-of-inventorship and assign rights to a third party is estopped from later challenging the patent’s validity in court. by Dennis Crouch. Hologic Inc.
Talevski , to be argued Tuesday, returns the court to the question of when federal law is subject to private enforcement. The court will consider whether to overrule a line of precedent and to hold that private individuals cannot use 42 U.S.C. The district court dismissed the action, but the U.S. Arguments of HHC.
Ireland Tuesday filed a declaration of intervention in the Registry of the Court in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Ukraine v. Under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court , states may intervene in the proceedings if the outcome will bind them. Russian Federation.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently explained the analysis for whether a statute creates a private right of action. Plaintiff general contractor brought this action in chancery court, asserting that it had a private right of action pursuant to a Tennessee statute. In Affordable Construction Services, Inc.
Share The Supreme Court on Friday issued orders from its so-called “long conference” – the justices’ private conference in the last week of September, at which they met for the first time since the end of June to add new cases to their docket. The trial court rejected that argument, and the California Court of Appeals agreed.
Share The Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday in , Cummings v. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that Cummings could not seek damages for emotional distress. At the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the justices sought to pin down which methodology they should apply to such cases. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. ,
Share The Supreme Court turns its attention to bankruptcy next Monday when it hears argument in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. The case involves the authority of a court of appeals to review a bankruptcy order authorizing a bankrupt tenant to sell its interest in a lease. The bankruptcy court rejected the landlord’s argument.
Kirschenbaum — On September 30, we blogged about the ongoing dispute and litigation around the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B Drug Discount Program (click here ). District Court for the Southern District of Indiana decided several substantive motions in Eli Lilly & Co. Last week, the U.S. 1:21-cv-00081-SEB-MJD (S.D.
By Faraz Siddiqui — As drug manufacturers battle the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) in federal courts over the role of 340B contract pharmacies, an Eighth Circuit decision to uphold a 2021 Arkansas law may render those cases inconsequential in that state. Code Ann. § 23-92-604(c)(1), (2) (Act 1103).
Share During oral argument in two consolidated cases on Tuesday, the court seemed poised to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and reject a ruling observers said would gut the government’s primary anti-fraud statute. At issue on Tuesday in two consolidated cases – U.S.
Share In a unanimous opinion on Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to shift the knowledge standard in False Claims Act cases that had the potential to gut the government’s primary anti-fraud statute. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit had found it was never relevant.
considered a technical question under the Bankruptcy Code, how to decide when an entity is a “party in interest” under the statute, which gives it a right to “be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 proceeding. One of the oddest parts of the argument was the lack of engagement with the relevant statute. Kaiser Gypsum Co.
The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) can retain its power to dismiss third-party federal whistleblower actions filed on behalf of the government under the False Claims Act (FCA). The court found for the government, therefore, Polansky filed for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Share The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Justice has broad, but not unfettered, authority to dismiss whistleblower lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provision even when the government initially elected to allow the whistleblower to proceed with the action.
The focus of this write-up is a case note on a very recent decision of the Nigerian Court of Appeal that declined to enforce an exclusive English choice of court agreement. [1] In exercising its discretion the court should take account of all the circumstances of the particular case.
The Supreme Court has ruled that victims of discrimination, which is forbidden by four federal statutes, may not sue if the only harm was emotional distress, reports the New York Times. The Supreme Court ruled against Cummings saying that the federal anti-discrimination laws she invoked did not allow suits for such emotional harm.
United States provides the court’s first serious look at one of the most important criminal statutes involving computer-related crime, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The lower courts upheld a conviction under the CFAA (because he was not entitled to check license-plate records for private purposes).
The court dismissed the case, holding that “the law does not impose strict liability for harms arising out of the storage of personal information.” 4-weeks after discovering the breach, Waste Management disclosed the breach to individuals as well as to the California Attorney General (required by statute).
This article was written by Shristi Roongta, who explains what are smart contracts and elaborates upon its presence in the Indian laws. Hence the contracts are also getting digitalised. Basically, smart contracts are new age software-based contracts in which the software automates the business processes. INTRODUCTION.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. In an effort to promote tribal self-governance, Congress allows tribes to contract with the agency to oversee these programs themselves. A list of all petitions we’re watching 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