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
A NewYork federal court'sdecision to exclude all plaintiff experts in a multidistrict litigation concerning prenatal exposure to Tylenol highlights a number of expert testimony pitfalls that parties should avoid in product liability and mass tort matters, say Rand Brothers and Courtney Block at Winston & Strawn.
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. The contract, like most American marine insurance contracts, called for the application of NewYork law.
Readers of this blog may find particular interested in selected articles, case notes, books review and English translations of courtdecisions related to private international law. 117(1) of the Child Abduction Convention Implementation Act to a Return Agreement in an In-Court Conciliation (p. xxxix, 302.
Pereira (Supreme Courtdecision 376 K/Pdt. Indonesian legislation and court practice generally uphold the principle of party autonomy. The chapter further discusses the law applicable to specific torts, including negligence, nuisance, wrongful interference with goods, defamation, and environmental damage and pollution.
Border Patrol agent, that a Turkish national, arriving in Seattle by way of NewYork, had scheduled transportation to Smuggler’s Inn. Boule filed a grievance with Agent Egbert’s supervisors and an ad- ministrative claim with Border Patrol pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
Supreme Courtdecision 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. This comment raises the question whether the decision reduces or in effect continues the previous uncertainty.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district courtdecision 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). Exxon Sought to Block NewYork Attorney General Investigation in Texas Federal Court.
As is frequently the case when the court denies review in cases that have been relisted repeatedly, denial occasioned dissent, this time from Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Relisted after the Jan. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences.) Franklin v.
Several of them are sequels to earlier high courtdecisions. First Amendment The current court is very solicitous of First Amendment rights. The Farm Bureau and North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein ask the court to grant review and reverse the 4th Circuit’s decision. NewYork and 335-7 LLC v.
The two lawsuits, one led by Sunoco and one led by Shell allege that the Supreme Court of Hawaii overstepped the separation of powers entrenched within the constitution by violating the state-law pre-emption clause in the Clean Air Act and the precedent set by the City of NewYork v.
While the Supreme Court routinely throws out lower-courtdecisions granting prisoners habeas relief, its fairly uncommon for the justices to summarily grant relief to habeas petitioners. Davis , 24-304 Issue: Whether a federal court may certify a class action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.
On April 1, 2021, a unanimous Second Circuit panel dismissed a lawsuit filed by NewYork City against a handful of fossil fuel companies seeking damages for climate change harms under state public nuisance and trespass law. By Michael Burger *. Photo by Alexander Tsang – Unsplash.
The court also temporarily enjoined two felony riot statutes because they went “far beyond” the State’s “appropriate interest” in criminalizing participation in a riot with acts of force or violence. Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Claims Regarding Environmental Review for Oil Pipeline. 97182-0 (Wash. Montgomery County , No.
The threat to the free press is obvious and was the basis for foundational courtdecisions. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision over 50 years ago in NewYork Times v. When NewYork Times v. seven times. ” It is that easy.
New Jersey , [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The challengers then sought Supreme Court review. Bruen , involving a challenge to NewYorks concealed-carry law.
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. NEW CASES, MOTIONS, AND OTHER FILINGS. City of NewYork v.
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. City of NewYork v.
Second Circuit Rejected NewYork City’s State Law Climate Claims Against Oil Companies. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of NewYork City’s lawsuit seeking climate change damages from oil companies. The Second Circuit’s decision largely followed the reasoning of the district court’s 2018 decision.
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