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'sdecision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was an important step toward reorienting enforcement and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in line with the actual text of the statute. Last month, however, the Supreme Court took notice.
The issue has arisen in recent Second Amendment litigation of whether plaintiffs' challenges to restrictions are cognizable facially or only as-applied. James , 25-384-cv, an appeal of the district court's upholding of New York's ban on firearms in public parks. The Court did not reject Mr. Heller's facial claim because D.C.
Indeed, Roberts reflected, when the whole point of the governments inquiry in deciding whether to grant or deny marketing authorization is whether the products will be sold to the public, the retailers might be the most likely people to challenge the denial of authorization. The government gets sued in a lot of places, she noted.
government deported him to Mexico. The government reinstated his prior removal order. While the Supreme Court has never set a bright-line test on when a detainee is entitled to a bond hearing, the U.S. The Supreme Court will now review those decisions. After one such entry, the U.S. In Zadvydas v.
Field preemption is a type of preemption that occurs when a higher level of government has regulated so comprehensively in an area as to exclude lower levels of government from regulating in the area, creating state uniform regulation. Field preemption can be express or implied. As explained in DJL Rest.
There is much to say about the Supreme Court'sdecision in Kennedy v. Officers are Government officials who exercise "'significant'" federal authority on an "ongoing" basis. We made this point during the Special Counsel litigation.) Braidwood Management, Inc. SEC, 585 U. 237, 244 (2018). at 245–246.
Manufacturers may choose not to participate in this program, but the federal government will not reimburse for their outpatient drugs under Medicaid or Medicare Part B if they do not. A 2018 report by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) found similar issues, as well as contract pharmacy noncompliance and poor federal oversight.
Some background about the general compromise that governs that problem sets the stage for this dispute. That decision distinguishes between types of gambling that a state prohibits outright and types of gambling that a state tolerates subject to regulation. The success of that facility led to proliferation of the business model.
The filing of “protective” claims for refund as a hedge against the draconian provisions that govern the federal taxation of cannabis, and particularly for marijuana, is one of those things properly placed at the top of the no-brainer list.
The case involves the costs of appellate litigation. Under the “American Rule,” the prevailing party in litigation in the United States ordinarily must pay its own attorney’s fees, absent some statute that calls for a different outcome.
The 2017 Supreme Courtdecision in TC Heartland gave renewed teeth to the venue statutegoverninglitigation. Although the notice letter is a critical aspect of the Hatch-Waxman process, the Federal Circuit found that the letter was not an “act of infringement” as required by the venue statute.
Electrification is a critical component of building decarbonization, and local governments are taking a leading role in this policy space. While a handful of local prohibitions fall within the Ninth Circuit decision’s scope, many more do not. Options that remain available to local governments are addressed in the next section.
Although no petitions have been granted, the Supreme Court has requested amicus briefs from the Federal Government in four particular cases. Because of that heavy threshold, a CVSG is typically seen as an important signal that the court is likely to grant certiorari. Qualcomm Incorporated , No. 35 U.S.C. §
The argument revealed a bench deeply skeptical of the uncertainty maritime insurance contracts would face under a lower-courtdecision limiting the enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in those contracts. Raiders Retreat Realty surprised anybody familiar with last fall’s oral argument.
In other words, FDA needed to determine whether the initial biosimilar litigation—pre-interchangeable supplemental approval—counts towards the FIE expiration date calculation. Notably, the purpose of the statute seemed to govern much of FDA’s interpretation.
Arizona is one of the most significant Supreme Courtdecisions in American criminal procedure. Generally, if the police obtain a suspect’s statement in violation of Miranda , the government cannot use that statement against the defendant in court. The trial court denied Tekoh’s motion and admitted his statement.
Supreme Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a claim-processing rule rather than a bright-line rule that constrains a court’s jurisdiction. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the Court. The Government claims that the easement includes public access, which petitioners dispute.
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 court ruled, must forfeit the $9,000.
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. That the claim rested on a federal statute and required the SEC to establish facts that do not match any cause of action known to the common law in 1791 was not dispositive.
Arellano appealed, arguing that his award’s effective date should be governed by an exception in §5110(b)(1), which makes “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation. . §5110(a)(1), the VA assigned an effective date of June 3, 2011—the day that the agency received his claim—to Arellano’s disability award.
’ 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 Nevada Supreme Court upheld a 2021 state ban on ghost guns Thursday, overturning a lower-courtdecision that declared the law unconstitutional for being vague. Stiglich authored the opinion of the court. That year, a US District Court also upheld the law, ruling that it did not violate the Second Amendment.
This case reached the Florida Supreme Court when it was certified by the United State Court of Appeals which was reviewing a District Courtdecision reaching the same conclusion as did the Florida Supreme Court – that there was no performance right under state law for pre-1972 sound recordings (see our summary of the District Courtdecision here ).
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. 58 Food and Drug L.J.
Its argument, inter alia , was that by virtue of Article 12 and 13 of their agreement, the Nigerian court had no jurisdiction in this case. GOVERNING LAW: The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA without regard to the principle of conflicts of any jurisdiction.”.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. On November 23, GM announced that it was withdrawing from the litigation. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has begun 2023 with its first precedential patent decision in DexCom, Inc. In an opinion by Judge Stoll, the court affirmed a district courtdecision denying DexCom’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 2023-1795 (Fed. January 3, 2024).
This seems both untenable as a practical outcome and inconsistent with both the statute and governing precedent. Based on my review of reported decisions, contributory infringement has not played a significant role in pharmaceutical patent litigation, and is redundant in view of the availability of an action for induced infringement.
On applicable law for environmental pollution (Article 7 Rome II), a pinnacle of business and human rights as well as climate change litigation. Predictability is the core ambition, not a particular outcome in litigation. The higher regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Frankfurt a.M. found differently.
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. Government contractors defenses to torts The GEO Group, Inc. This week it disposed of four.
Each month, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. and non-U.S. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.
Have you heard about the big Supreme Courtdecision that came down a couple weeks ago? We’re talking about the one with the power to upend the regulatory system and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of the federal government. Last month, the Supreme Court’s holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v.
The district court dismissed Konans claims, finding them barred by the postal exception. It reasoned that loss and miscarriage cover intentional acts, as the statute only qualifies transmission with negligent. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed , holding that the exception doesnt apply to intentional nondelivery.
in Singapore, appeal on merits of award is only provided by Arbitration Act governing domestic arbitration and not available in arbitration proceedings under International Arbitration Act. Therefore, the discrepancy between pre-decision opinion and final award does not amount to annulment of the award. [xv]. Preference of Parties.
After a few slow weeks on the relist front, the Supreme Court came roaring back this week with four newly relisted petitions that, if granted, will likely be added to the March 2023 argument calendar. The government again seeks review of the 9th Circuit’s holding. Two years ago, in United States v. Hansen appealed to the 9th Circuit.
What words, he asked Bursch, would create such rights, rather than having something like or its functional equivalent, would could lead to another decade of litigation? Representing the federal government, Kyle Hawkins told the justices that their cases emphasized that rights-creating statutes are atypical.
Likewise "when the police perform 'community caretaking functions' that are 'totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.'" But the search in this case was obviously related to a criminal investigation, as confirmed by the charges that McMurry later faced.
Oklahoma last term, the court confronted the complex past of Oklahoma’s Native nations, Chehalis turns on the unique legal history of Alaskan Natives. Though Alaska became part of the United States in 1867, the federal government only fitfully devoted attention to the status of the new territory’s Indigenous peoples.
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. 1) The litigation background.
Several of them are sequels to earlier high courtdecisions. First Amendment The current court is very solicitous of First Amendment rights. Three trials the district court selected as non-binding “bellwether” trials resulted in plaintiff verdicts. Below we briefly discuss those 14 cases. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived the case of a man on death-row in Texas who is seeking DNA testing to provide evidence that he asserts will clear him. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that Rodney Reed had filed his challenge to the Texas law governing DNA testing too late.
Share The Supreme Court doesn’t care all that much for method-of-execution challenges. It particularly disfavors Eighth Amendment litigation attacking familiar lethal injection protocols as “cruel and unusual” punishment. Georgia, by contrast, argues that Nance must bring the Eighth Amendment claim under the federal habeas statutes.
Hill , the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed a district court ruling 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.
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