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
Taking a different approach, Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the Patent Act does not mention claim preclusion or issue preclusion, but those doctrines nevertheless bar certain arguments in patent litigation. Morgan Ratner argued for the federal government, which filed its own friend-of-the-court brief but supported neither party.
This means that issues decided at the district or administrative court level can be binding on all other courts: district courts, administrative courts, appellate courts, and even the Supreme Court. District courtdecisions are not binding precedent because they are at the bottom. ” Id.
Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. Goertz , 21-442. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.
It’s a little surprising the court let stand a federal courtdecision invalidating a state statute on constitutional grounds, but animal-rights groups defending that decision argued persuasively that state statutes are in a state of flux and it would be premature for the justices to take up the case now.
There are five comments that could be made about the Court of Appeal’s decision (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U. 6] First, the Court of Appeal (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U. 8] It should be stressed that Oputa JSC’s obiter dictum is not binding on lower courts according to the Nigerian common law doctrine of staredecisis.
The result of the authors’ analyses of Nigerian appellate courts’ cases bordering on the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts in actions in personam arising from causes of action which accrue outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts is particularly eye-opening.
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