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 rejected Friday an RNC application to stay a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Courtdecision that grants voters who cast defective mail-in ballots an option to alternatively cast in-person provisional ballots. ” Parties to the opinion jousted over how to interpret Election Code language.
The US Supreme Courtruled Thursday in Dubin v. United States that in order to constitute aggravated identity theft, the use of a person’s identity must be at the “crux” of what makes the conduct criminal, reversing a lower courtdecision.
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.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday over a challenge to Louisiana’s recently redrawn voting map and its two Black-majority districts. But this has became life as usual for the states under this Court’s voting cases.” It is unclear how the court will rule in the case.
As enacted in 1984, the statute at issue in the case, 18 U.S.C. Justice Kavanaugh cited that six reasons that, taken together, led the Court to conclude that §666 is a bribery statute and not a gratuities statute—”text, statutory history, statutory structure, statutory punishments, federalism, and fair notice.”
One example is a recent US District Courtruling on a motion for summary judgment of a copyright lawsuit brought by a photographer when his photos of Willie Nelson and Carlos Santana appeared on a news website to illustrate articles on the musicians. However, relying on the creative commons license can be perilous.
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which reversed the district courtsdecision. The court of appeals interpreted Fernandezs argument that he is potentially innocent as a challenge to the validity of his conviction. courts against foreign officials for torture and murder. The government appealed to the U.S.
Finding a likelihood that consumers would confuse the “Bad Spaniels” toy with Jack Daniel’s, the trial courtruled in favor of Jack Daniel’s and barred VIP from continuing to manufacture the Bad Spaniels toy. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed on both counts. VIP’s perspective on dilution is much the same.
The bankruptcy court thought Kate’s situation should be different, because she lacked any “actual knowledge” of the deficiencies in the disclosure statement. Because Buckley’s claim did not involve money obtained by her fraud, the bankruptcy courtruled that Kate could discharge that claim.
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.
By Riëtte van Laack & JP Ellison — On Thursday, the 27 th of June, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. The first question in the Court’s analysis was whether the claim that the SEC brought is a “suit at common law,” i.e., if the case is legal in nature. Jarkesy.
Suri told the justices that this was not a question of convenience, but instead about Congresss choice in the statute to delineate where cases can be brought. A decision in the case is expected by summer. This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
Share As expected, Thursday’s decision in Slack Technologies v. Pirani rejected a lower-courtruling that had substantially broadened liability for publicly traded companies under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. In his view, though, the “context” offers “several clues” that make the meaning plain.
These kinds of local action could experience preemption scrutiny were the court to make a broad finding that the CLCPA field preempts Local Law 97. As we explain: While Local Law 97 is the subject of this litigation, it is just one of countless local actions existing and future implicated by this Courtsdecision.
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.
In the same vein, talking with Carter Phillips,representing the India-owned defendant, Elena Kagan first tried to confirm that he was unwilling to defend the lower courtsdecision: Have you given up on that? Why, he asked, shouldnt the court simply throw out the lower courtsruling and send the case back to the 9th Circuit?
A federal district court in Florida tossed their paperwork, given the requirement in the federal drug statute that third-party petitions to reclaim seized assets “be signed by the Petitioner under penalty of perjury.” The two business owners, the lower courtruled, must forfeit the $9,000. In Sanchez v.
The FCC's indecency policy has been in limbo since last year's Supreme Courtdecision determining that the Commission's fines on broadcasters for fleeting expletives had not been adequately explained before being imposed. On Monday, the FCC took a step to clarifying that policy by asking for public comments on what it should do now.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in California Restaurant Association v. The court overturned a District Courtruling to invalidate a Berkeley, California, prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly-constructed buildings. O n Monday, April 17, 2023, the U.S. City of Berkeley.
In reaching this decision, the Court looked at the language of the California statute dealing with pre-1972 sound recordings. It is important to recognize that this is a trial courtdecision by a Federal Court interpreting California law.
Claud & Faraz Siddiqui — As we move into the heat of the summer, we can look forward to the annual June deluge of opinions coming from the Supreme Court. It’s not a high evidentiary bar, as the FCA is a civil statute written and interpreted to sweep in a wide range of fraudulent intent in order to protect Federal funds.
The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Bahraini court based on the forum selection clause, but did not present any claim as to the merits of the case. However, with respect to agreements with derogative effect, although the law is silent on the matter, the Supreme Court has ruled against their admissibility.
Supreme Courtruled that public officials may be held liable for their social media activity in certain circumstances. The District Court found that because Freed managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, and because only state action can give rise to liability under §1983, Lindke’s claim failed. In Lindke v.
The Court pointed out that its task was not to determine whether the ability of the FTC to substitute §13(b) for the administrative procedure in §5 and consumer redress under §19 was desirable, but rather to answer a “more purely legal question,” Slip Op. It did that by focusing on the text of the statute. hide elephants in mouseholes.”
Courtdecisions In 2019, a US District Judge for the Central District of California, applying Spanish law, found that court filings did not demonstrate a “willful blindness” on the part of the Museum, when it added the painting to its collection.
’ This Case is highly significant, because it extensively addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Kenya and the principles to be considered by the Kenyan Courts. That procedure was not immediately apparent.
The Supreme Court of Virginia Thursday ruled that the city of Charlottesville can remove two Confederate statues, including one of General Robert E. The ruling comes after the Virginia General Assembly approved a law last year that allows localities to remove war memorials. and The Monument Fund, Inc.
The case arose when the plaintiff, a woman, filed for issuance of a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) pursuant to Chapter 50B of the North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) against another woman with whom she had been in a dating relationship. While relying on the Supreme Courtdecision in Bostock v.
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Monday reversed a preliminary injunction previously implemented to bar the enforcement of an Indiana law requiring fetal remains to be either buried or cremated by clinics that provide abortion. The laws require that only abortion providers either bury or cremate fetal remains.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled Wednesday that a 1849 statute that banned nearly all abortions is unenforceable. The majority held that the state legislature “impliedly repealed” the statute through its comprehensive abortion care legislation over the past 50 years.
The statute does list a number of exclusions from the ADA’s definition, which played a key role in Kincaid’s argument. Helms was a key dissenter to the ADA’s inclusions and fought hard for the exclusions now present in the statute. “If The case will first return to lower court. So what’s the root of the controversy?
Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The district courtruled that EPA was required to conduct such evaluations in October 2016 and set an expedited schedule for EPA’s compliance. ADDITION TO THE NON-U.S.
The appellate court also found that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless because the State proved both acts beyond a reasonable doubt. Hawaii CourtRuled that Commercial Aquarium Fishing Required Environmental Review. Zepeda , No. 80593-2-I (Wash.
The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists. United States , involving the scope of a statute that gives judges discretion to reduce criminal sentences for extraordinary and compelling reasons. This week it disposed of four. It was good news for the petitioner in Fernandez v.
So when people exposed to Agent Orange sued Dow in state court, Dow was able to have the case removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute. For those practicing in the Seventh Circuit , here's a charming little primer on how the court screens district-courtdecisions for jurisdictional problems.
Share On Wednesday, the Supreme Courtruled 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.
Share Two men on Arizona’s death row are not entitled to present new evidence in federal court to support their arguments that their trial lawyers bungled their cases, the Supreme Courtruled Monday in a 6-3 decision. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court sided with Arizona. “[O]nly
Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Returning Relists.
Hirshfeld has the legal power to fulfill the expanded job as required by the Supreme Court’s decision. Guest post by Nina Mendelson , Following one Supreme Courtdecision posing dangers for the integrity of all sorts of agency adjudication, the ongoing litigation in Arthrex v. — Dennis Crouch.
As Roberts put it, what should the court do in a situation where “the plain language” of a statute “seems to require one result,” while “the plainly logical meaning of a subsequent precedent” seems to require the opposite? But a 2012 Supreme Courtdecision, Martinez v. We have to follow AEDPA.”
Supreme Courtruled that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge a Biden Administration immigration enforcement policy. According to the eight-member majority, “federal courts are generally not the proper forum for resolving claims that the Executive Branch should make more arrests or bring more prosecutions.”
Hill , the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed a district courtruling that struck down two state statutes — one requiring sex offenders to obtain specialized identification cards (with the words “SEX OFFENDER” in all caps) and the other prohibiting alteration of such identification documents.
In a 6-3 decision Ex parte Danny Richard Lane , the state’s highest criminal appeals courtruled that Texas’ historical doctrine of “judicial clemency” does not forgive sex offender registration. In 1987, the trial court “set aside” the rape conviction through a “judicial clemency” order.
They have asked for the dismissal of the indictment for lack of jurisdiction since the Courtruled in Dobbs that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” The court’s other citation is to a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in J ane L. Bangerter , 61 F.3d
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