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
In its decision, the Court took the uncommon step of sua sponte certifying a question of state law (here, Ohio law) to a state supreme supreme court (the Ohio Supreme Court). A — perhaps the — critical issue in the appeal is whether Ohio law allows such a public-nuisance claim. Tompkins , 304 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.
According to the Court, such laws do not offend the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Facts of the Case Robert Mallory worked for Norfolk Southern as a freight-car mechanic for nearly 20 years, first in Ohio, then in Virginia. Supreme Court’sDecision The Supreme Court reversed.
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.
Supreme Court will hear a case with potentially sweeping implications for discrimination cases. Ohio Department of Youth Service involves an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claims she was discriminated against for being straight as less-qualified LGBT colleagues in Ohio’s youth corrections system were promoted.
A series of Supreme Courtdecisions have weighed in on the 1971 laws campaign-spending rules. Valeo , the court struck down the limits on independent expenditures but generally upheld the limits on contributions. United States should be extended to bar claims under statutes other than the Federal Tort Claims Act.
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. Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.) Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.)
The case comes two years after the Supreme Courtsdecision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Ames began work in 2004 as an executive secretary at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which supervises the confinement and rehabilitation of children and teenagers who commit felonies. The justices agreed in November to weigh in.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed , holding that because a federal agency now has the final say over how the private horse-racing authority implements the federal statute, the amended law did not impermissibly delegate authority to a private entity. In a one-paragraph order, the justices granted the authoritys request.
In another environmental case, Ohio v. This happened in five other cases making six of the 30 total 5-4 decisions between OT 2020 and OT 2023 or 20% of the time. Empire Health Foundation (2021) and Ohio v. EPA (2023), the Court interpreted federal regulations, such as Medicare reimbursement and environmental rules.
This week, we highlight a number of those petitions the justices are set to consider, seeking review of lower courtdecisions on student-loan forgiveness, the constitutionality of federal agencies, and more. It is also the next-to-last conference before President-elect Donald Trumps inauguration on Jan. Oklahoma v.
In Minnesota, the district court granted the State of Minnesota’s motion to remand its case, which asserts state law claims under common law and consumer protection statutes. s consumer protection statute. On March 26, 2021, the court denied Exxon’s emergency motion for a temporary stay of the remand order.
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