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
cannot use a free speech statute to duck a climate change suit brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General, the state's top courtruled Tuesday, finding that the law in question applies to private suits but not public enforcement actions. ExxonMobil Corp.
McDonough , a case that the court already rescheduled seven times last term, and which involves the construction of a statute providing disability pay for members of the military. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by a divided vote , deferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs construction of the statute under Chevron U.S.A.,
The battle over services that record and stream over-the-air TV without compensation to TV broadcasters has become even more confusing, with a US District Court judge in Boston denying an injunction to stop the Aereo service in Massachusetts in a suit brought by Hearst Corporation, which owns a local TV station.
The US Supreme Courtruled Friday in US v. The crux of the case rests on Article III of the US Constitution, which governs the Court’s judicial purview. The US District Court Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of the states, enjoining Homeland Security from enforcing the memorandum.
Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The district courtruled that EPA was required to conduct such evaluations in October 2016 and set an expedited schedule for EPA’s compliance.
Rollins challenges a Massachusetts law that makes it a felony to secretly record the speech of anyone other than a law enforcement officer, irrespective of motive. Next, we explore the bounds of the Federal Arbitration Act, with a pair of petitions arguing that California’s efforts to restrict arbitration agreements undermine federal law.
The appellate court was already expediting review of the case, and the dismissal was “without prejudice.” ” The health care workers can refile if circumstances change or if the appellate courtrules against them. They also can refile if the lower court has not reached a decision by Oct.
The case involved Charlie Craig and David Mullins who went to the Colorado cake shop of Jack Phillips to order a cake celebrating their earlier marriage in Massachusetts. Stutzman the owner added a religious hostility claim after Masterpiece cakeshp but on June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman.
The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. The court also declined to “create a new tort named abusive litigation.” National Review, Inc. ,
The courtruled against her and found that the park’s duty was only to “make conditions as safe as they appear to be” and that Munoz “ was aware of the risk she encountered, and expected to be surprised, startled, and scared.” See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. Trimble ␣ 315 Mo.
The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Haaland , No. 1:21-cv-02317 (D.D.C.,
Grimm , leaves in place a lower-courtruling that found that a Virginia school district violated federal law when it barred students from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities. corporations can be sued for violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the law on which the Iraqi plaintiffs were relying, at all.
And when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case on June 23, Roberts was on board. The decision was noteworthy not only because it struck down the New York law, which mirrored similar restrictions in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, but for its methodology. And in West Virginia v.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday morning declined to take an appeal by anti-abortion activists in a First Amendment dispute with Planned Parenthood, as well as a test of New Jersey’s “slogan statutes.” courts Dermody v. A jury awarded Planned Parenthood nearly $2.5 The specific question at issue in Mazo v. 6 attacks on the U.S.
Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
In a series of recent decisions, federal courts across the United States have addressed a range of significant legal issues, from civil rights and constitutional law to administrative authority and criminal justice. Among them are Griffith v. Both sides appealed, leading to a complex legal battle over voting rights and state authority.
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The district court had granted Exxon’s motion to stay the case under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to allow the U.S.
The claim that such protests are acts of intimidation has been before the courts since the 19th century. 92 (1896), for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Courtruled that a labor union could be found guilty of an intentional tort by picketing a business. In Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. Coakley in 2014.
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