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
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its previous decision on Tuesday which found Pennsylvaniastatutes preventing “18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms outside their homes during a state of emergency” unconstitutional. The commissioner petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Keeping elderly offenders in prison until their deaths is expensive, too: the report found that Pennsylvania pays at least $122 million per year in care for people over 50 serving life without parole in the state’s prisons. At 9,802, the state imprisons more than twice the people serving LWP than the second-highest population in Pennsylvania.
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. In this case, for example, a European insurance company insured a yacht owned by a Pennsylvania company.
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.
After he left the company, Mallory moved to Pennsylvania for a period before returning to Virginia. Mallory filed his lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court. In fact, Norfolk Southern has registered to do business in Pennsylvania in light of its “regular, systematic, [and] extensive” operations there. Washington , 326 U.S.
Animal Legal Defense Fund , involving the constitutionality of a Kansas statute criminalizing trespass by deception at animal facilities with intent to damage the enterprise. That case involves whether companies consent to a state’s courts having general personal jurisdiction over them by registering to do business there.
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , 598 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that uncashed MoneyGram checks are governed by the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Check Act (FDA) and should be returned to the state where they were issued. In Delaware v. It was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s first opinion.
A Hawaii court held that the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act requires environmental review for commercial taking of aquarium fish and that Department of Land and Natural Resources issuance and renewal of licenses for commercial aquarium collection without environmental review was invalid and illegal.
The US Supreme Court rejected Friday an RNC application to stay a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Courtdecision that grants voters who cast defective mail-in ballots an option to alternatively cast in-person provisional ballots. The RNC also relied on a 2020 state case, Pennsylvania Democratic Party v.
Smith , and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overrule Smith. The court faced but did not decide the issue of whether to overrule Smith in last term’s Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.). Two terms ago, the Supreme Court held by a 5-4 vote in McGirt v. Pennsylvania , 20-7805. They invoke Rapanos v.
Cohen – who first met the Lovings when he was just 29 – filed a lawsuit on their behalf, challenging the Virginia law and similar state statutes as violating the 14th Amendment. He and his co-counsel, Philip Hirschkop, took the case to the Supreme Court. Virginia , the court did find the statute unconstitutional.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Thursday that a federal statute requiring people to be 21 to purchase handguns from Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) conflicts with previous Supreme Courtdecisions and the Second Amendment.
But the court declined to invalidate the entire agency for this structural flaw, instead severing the for-cause provision from the rest of its authorizing statute. Raiders, a Pennsylvania-based company, insured a yacht with Great Lakes. Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., On appeal, the U.S.
4] Canadas statute is an updated version of what have been called constituency statutes in the United States, which explicitly expand the fiduciary duties of corporate managers and directors beyond shareholders but do not usually include the environment among allowable factors, except in Arizona and Texas. [5]
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Bureau of Land Management , No. filed Dec.
DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district courtdecision that vacated the listing of the Arctic ringed seal as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). order setting schedule Mar. 1, 2018; order denying remand and notice re tutorial Feb.
Three Republican senators – Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas – write that a precedent can be unworkable due to “a history of confusion in the lower courts, an unstable pattern of Supreme Courtdecisions, and a persistent lack of judicially manageable standards.”
The petitions in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party , 20-574 , involve challenges to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ’s extension of an absentee-voting deadline last year. They argue that the court nonetheless should grant review in order to clarify the law for future elections.
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