Remove Contract Remove Oklahoma Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Guest Post: Third-Party Litigation Funding: Disclosure to Courts, Congress, and the Executive

Patently O

bankruptcy, class action, trademark, securities, and tort litigation, to the tune of $50 to $100 billion in investments annually. [10] 23] Such laws are already on the books in Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, some of which limit the amount and type of funding entirely. [24]

article thumbnail

Whether “bump stocks” are “machineguns,” and a very specific arbitration issue

SCOTUSBlog

Brownback , involving whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “judgment bar,” which bars any claim based on the same subject matter as a dismissed FTCA case, applies when both the actions were originally brought together. The Supreme Court did not grant review in any new cases since our last installment. relisted after the Oct.

Court 114
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

University bias-response teams and more Munsingwear vacatur

SCOTUSBlog

Abbott , involving a challenge to the use of nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel to hold that issues resolved in bellwether tort trials bind the defendant in later cases. Both cases involve what contract support costs the Indian Health Service is obligated to pay to Native American tribesthat manage their own health care programs.

Court 108
article thumbnail

Red states urge Supreme Court to block suits against big oil

SCOTUSBlog

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.) Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan 17 conferences.) Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v.

Court 118
article thumbnail

This week’s relists: preemption of consumer protection laws, bankruptcy claims, COVID mandates and. Chevron deference again?

SCOTUSBlog

The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan, saying that the insurer was not a “party in interest” because the bankruptcy plan left its rights under its insurance contracts where it found them – in the parlance of the case law, it was “insurance neutral.”. Truck Insurance Exchange was the sole objector to the plan. 26 and Oct. 26 and Oct.

Laws 95
article thumbnail

In a slew of new cases, the justices take in closer look

SCOTUSBlog

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Oklahoma v. Judicial factfinding for restitution Under Apprendi v. Relisted after the Jan. 10 conference.) Relisted after the Jan. 10 conference.) Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Relisted after the Jan. 10 conference.)

Tort 108