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
McGills brief argued that a jurisdictional problem (based on the courtsdecision in Badgerow v. It took Roberts 10 separate questions to elicit that admission! The most important thing I got out of the argument is that the justices seem highly motivated to decide the question presented.
The Supreme Court previously held that the post-removal statute contains an implicit time limit. Davis , a 2001 decision, the court read that provision to prohibit detention beyond six months for noncitizens ordered removed when their removal is not “reasonably foreseeable.” In Zadvydas v. Rodriguez and Johnson v.
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.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Reed should have filed his lawsuit within two years of the trial court’sdecision denying his request for DNA testing. On Wednesday, the court reversed that decision. This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
As a practical matter, he asked Suri, why is it inconvenient for the government to litigate in one circuit instead of another? 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.
Under AEPDA, habeas relief is only available to a prisoner whose claims were adjudicated on the merits in state court if the prisoner can show that the last reasoned state courtdecision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Many of the justices seemed to agree. California.
HRSA based its opinion on the statute and agency precedents over the last 25 years. Judge Stark found that, although HRSA’s interpretation of the statute was permissible, the Advisory Opinion unjustifiably assumed that Congress imposed this interpretation as a statutory requirement. A decision is expected in the coming months.
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.”
It is titled: CSA Okoli, A Yekini & P Oamen, “The Igiogbe Custom as a Mandatory Norm in Conflict of Laws: An Exploration of Nigerian Appellate CourtDecisions.” Litigation on the custom has been described as a matter of life and death. This custom is a mandatory norm in conflict of laws.
The case turns on a 1988 amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act, which added the current Section 16(a) to that statute. Kavanaugh reasoned that when “the question on appeal is whether the case belongs in arbitration or instead in the district court, the entire case is essentially ‘involved in the appeal.’”
The statute would create a rebuttable presumption of consolidation. The new statute would list factors that a district court should consider when determining whether or not to grant a stay, all the changes would tend to promote stays of the litigation. Expanding the Scope of Inter Partes Review.
That decision distinguishes between types of gambling that a state prohibits outright and types of gambling that a state tolerates subject to regulation. In 1983, responding to a lower-courtdecision holding that the transfer of those trust responsibilities violated the Texas Constitution, Texas terminated the trust relationship.
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 statute governing litigation. 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.
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. District courts have discretion to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences unless a statute mandates otherwise.
Qualcomm , a case focusing on appellate standing following an IPR final written decision favoring the patentee. The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. Rather, an appellant must show concrete injury caused by the PTAB decision and redressability of that injury.
According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process claim begins to run at the end of the state-courtlitigation.
In their petition, the legislators argue that courts are split as to whether an official seeking to intervene in a case under a state law must prove that the state’s interest is not adequately represented. Federal law curtails the extent to which a federal court can consider arguments that a prisoner has not presented in state court.
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.
Recent developments have made it even more attractive — for example, the basis for the argument of unconstitutionality of §280E has recently and ably been outlined by the judiciary in three dissenting opinions to a 2019 Tax Courtdecision (For a summary, see: [link] ).
The meaning of these distinctions is at the core of the current litigation over the 2020 CARES Act. They further claim that subsequent statutes, federal agencies and appeals courtdecisions have all already recognized the corporations as entities eligible for federal contracting under the ISDA.
For a time, that decision stopped the death penalty in its tracks and offered a stinging critique of its unfairness. The Furman litigation was the culmination of a campaign conducted by a group of lawyers under the auspices of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. This time the court’s verdict was less equivocal, though no less divided.
Courts to obtain discovery in order to facilitate foreign litigation; with the pending global litigation between Eli Lilly and Novartis serving as our key example. The standard today is that prior to trial the litigating parties will share “mutual knowledge of all relevant facts.” ” Hickman v.
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.
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.
As Congress continued to legislatively develop the statute, courts also added common law nuance, including the law of patent eligibility. Since 2012, almost 2,000 courtdecisions have referenced these cases along with 8,000+ PTAB decisions. Constitution authorizes Congress to legislatively create a patent system.
The answer to that question turned on the relationship between a Supreme Courtdecision and a congressional statute. Additionally, the majority noted, the legal materials that a court may consult when addressing the two inquiries are distinct: AEDPA requires the court to focus on U.S. In Brecht v.
Accused infringers also prefer IPRs because they effectively bifurcate the trial between validity and infringement, with the IPR validity questions being decided first while infringement litigation is stayed. The result is that the IPRs are also a low risk option for accused infringers since no liability attaches from that decision.
In answering that question, the Supreme Court applied its recently minted, two-step methodology for assessing the extraterritorial reach of U.S. statutes generally. European Community , step one requires a court to decide whether the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted by a clear indication from Congress.
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 — if the patentee is involved in concurrent district court infringement litigation, at what step is the patent no longer enforceable? The affirmed PTAB decision found the claim invalid with a preponderance of the evidence. And yet, fudging the rules in a way that undermines due process is troubling.
. § 315(e)’s IPR estoppel provision applies only to claims addressed in the final written decision, as consistent with the holdings in Shaw , and Intuitive Surgical , and whether that interpretation remains correct after SAS Institute, Inc. Once the IPR concluded, district courtlitigation restarted, focusing on claim 27.
It is an appeal from one of the many cases pending before Judge Polster in the Northern District of Ohio as part of the National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The Panel, it turns out, thought Ohio law was not quite as clear as the parties did and certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court. 22-3750/3751/3753/3841/3843/3844.
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.
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. In Wilkins v. United States , 598 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. Fort Bend County v. Davis , 587 U.S.
There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States.
In reaching its decision, the Court explained that equitable tolling “effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress” when a litigant diligently pursues his rights but extraordinary circumstances prevent him from bringing a timely action. It also noted that pursuant to Irwin v.
Arizona is one of the most significant Supreme Courtdecisions in American criminal procedure. Dickerson put the kibosh on an unconstitutional federal statute that, effectively, sought to overrule Miranda. Share Miranda v. 3) Goodbye, Miranda ? 4) Proximate cause says what?
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.
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.
All this “complexity and uncertainty” would “‘breed[] litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it.’” The Court next turned to Flowers argument that the §1 exemption would sweep too broadly without an implied transportation-industry requirement.
courts for use in foreign proceedings. Referring to the statute’s twin goals to provide “efficient assistance to participants in international litigation and encourag[e] foreign countries by example to provide similar assistance to our courts”, U.S. The first issue U.S.
FDA claimed that Congress afforded FDA the discretion to regulate devices as drugs based an overlap in the statutory definitions of “drug” and “device” and chose to do so in the case of contrast agents in response to a 1997 courtdecision and related Citizen Petition.
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