Remove Court Decisions Remove Montana Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 4/2021: Abstracts

Conflict of Laws

Supreme Court decision in March 2021 in Ford vs. Montana now permits the exercise of specific jurisdiction when the claim arises out of or is (sufficiently) “related” to the defendant’s in-state contacts and activities. The long-awaited U.S. Wurmnest: International Jurisdiction in Abuse of Dominance Cases.

article thumbnail

The morning read for Wednesday, August 21

SCOTUSBlog

Here’s the Wednesday morning read: Voters in Arizona and Montana can decide on constitutional right to abortion (Sejal Govindarao & Amy Beth Hanson, The Associated Press) Trial date set for man accused of attempting to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh (Jordan Fischer, WUSA9) Supreme Court decisions could determine future of clean air, water in East (..)

Tort 110
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Climate Litigation Chart Updates – November 2016

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision that vacated the listing of the Beringia distinct population segment (DPS) of the Pacific bearded seal subspecies as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Climate Litigation Chart (Update #92): FEATURED CASE. Alaska Oil & Gas Association v.

article thumbnail

July 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision reversing the district court’s 2018 denial of Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to remand their climate change nuisance cases to California state court. In a 6-3 decision, the U.S.

Court 48
article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that she believed the Court’s interpretation would allow defendants to “sidestep” the general bar on appellate review by “shoehorning” a civil rights or federal officer removal argument into their case for removal. Justice Alito did not take part in the case. Sierra Club v. Army Corps of Engineers , No.

Court 44