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
Carole Johnson (consolidated cases), the Court found that the conditions set by Novartis and United Therapeutics on covered entities did not violate the 340B statute, although more restrictive conditions could violate the law. A number of drug companies sued to enjoin enforcement. Novartis and United Therapeutics Corporation sued in the D.C.
Virginia concerns the power of a state attorney general to bring lawsuits on behalf of private parties who would otherwise be subject to an arbitration agreement. The case involves a lender, NCFS, who between 2012 and 2018 provided loans to over 47,000 people in Virginia with interest rates that ranged from 34% to 155%.
A US federal judge ordered a retrial on Friday in a case involving allegations that Virginia-based military contractor CACI Premier Technology, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute , which allows foreign citizens to bring lawsuits in US federal courts for serious violations of international law.
1983 — which allows private suits for state and local deprivations of rights secured by federal law—to enforce federal statutes enacted under Congress’ spending clause power. Laws” means federal statutes, including spending clause enactments that “unambiguously” create individual rights. Background.
In November 30 2020, the Nigerian Court of Appeal delivered a third decision where it declined to enforce a Commonwealth of Virginia (in USA) Choice of Court Agreement. [3] In the first two decisions delivered in the year 2020, the Nigerian Court of Appeal gave full contractual effect to the parties’ foreign choice of court agreement. [2]
That prompted the challengers – Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with trade associations and companies affected by the plan – to come to the Supreme Court last fall, asking the justices to intervene. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to put the rule on hold while a challenge to the plan continued in the lower courts.
Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia filed suit, arguing that EPA’s rulemaking process circumvented the Clean Air Act’s cooperative-federalism mandate by forcing its own top-down control over state-level air-pollution reduction, and moved to stay the federal plan pending judicial review. LePage Bakeries Park St., Warner Chappell Music, Inc.
Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, even though it requires out-of-state corporations registering to do business within the state to consent to all-purpose (general) personal jurisdiction. This post is by Maggie Gardner, a professor of law at Cornell Law School.
There are several statutes that form the basis of our antitrust laws. They also required any financial company entering (or renewing) contracts with state entities to affirm they do not, and will not, boycott those companies. And what are the permissible boundaries of that behavior? What is a Boycott, according to antitrust law?
The court said the statutory language authorized courts to grant stays and that EPA’s reading of the statute “would have the perverse result of empowering this court to act when the agency denies a stay but not when it chooses to grant one.” filed June 5, 2017; emergency motion for stay granted July 3, 2017). DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS.
The FAA exempts “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Arrow Highway Steel, represented in part by Dean Erwin Chemerinski , argues that Section 351 does not (unlike the statute in Bendix ) burden interstate commerce. In Circuit City Stores Inc.
Meanwhile the Fifth Circuit enforced a forum selection clause in an insurance contract choosing British Virgin Island courts despite evidence that the claims stood little chance in those courts. Bowman , which addresses the scope of federal criminal statutes, into its current extraterritoriality framework.
It directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to contract with a nonprofit climate reporting organization that has “experience with climate-related financial risk disclosure by entities operating in California.” cit [50] See, e.g., West Virginia v. See Natasha Singer, “Charting the ‘California Effect’ on Tech Regulation,” N.Y.
Coverage of federal fraud statutes Porat v. There are six newly relisted cases this week, so I’m going to be more summary than usual in describing them. This week’s relists are a real grab bag of issues. United States and Kousisis v. rescheduled before the May 30 conference; relisted after the June 6 conference) NVIDIA Corp. Kentucky ex rel.
On the other hand, in general, the Israeli state recognizes as valid marriages contracted outside of Israel that were valid at the place of the marriage. For the same reason I wrote about a Virginia law allowing Virginia notaries to take oaths and acknowledgements from people outside of Virginia by video. God in Heaven!”
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Wild Virginia v. 19-1189 (U.S.
The court also granted motions to strike the state law claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. Murray Energy also moved in the federal district court for the Northern District of West Virginia to amend the order of dismissal with prejudice issued by the court on October 2, 2017.
4] Canadas statute is an updated version of what have been called constituency statutes in the United States, which explicitly expand the fiduciary duties of corporate managers and directors beyond shareholders but do not usually include the environment among allowable factors, except in Arizona and Texas. [5]
The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. West Virginia v.
In its legislative findings, which remain in air quality statutes today , Congress justified air pollution regulation because “the growth of the amount and complexity of air pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development, and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare.”
The magistrate judge concluded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further found that the plaintiffs conceded that venue in Boulder County was not proper for San Miguel under this statute. Forest Service Categorical Exclusions Challenged in Virginia Federal Court. WildEarth Guardians v.
Jacobson’s lawsuit asserted defamation, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel claims. West Virginia Court Dismissed Defamation Suit Against John Oliver Brought by Coal Executive and His Companies. A West Virginia state court notified counsel that it would dismiss the lawsuit brought by coal executive Robert E. Jacobson 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