Remove Court Decisions Remove Kansas Remove Statute
article thumbnail

D.C. Circuit Sides with Manufacturers in Latest 340B Contract Pharmacy Case

FDA Law Blog

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. District Court and won, prompting a government appeal to the D.C.

article thumbnail

Animal rights and the First Amendment, due process and a confession of error

SCOTUSBlog

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 Court decisions support that theory of consent. Next up is Kelly v.

Statute 108
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Private rights of action, overtime pay, and the constitutionality of a billboard tax

SCOTUSBlog

Animal Legal Defense Fund , involving the constitutionality of a Kansas statute criminalizing trespass by deception at animal facilities with intent to damage the enterprise. McCall , the other case raising the issue, which the court will now hold pending the outcome of Mallory. Next up is Bartenwerfer v.

Statute 83
article thumbnail

Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Journalist Contesting Georgia’s Anti-BDS Law

JonathanTurley

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 court decision.

article thumbnail

July 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.

Court 46