Remove Court Rules Remove Misdemeanor Remove Statute Remove Texas
article thumbnail

Utah Woman Charged with Hate Crime for Stomping on “Back The Blue” Sign

JonathanTurley

which states a person who commits any primary offense — such as misdemeanor property destruction — with the intent to “intimidate or terrorize another person or with reason to believe that his action would intimidate or terrorize that person” is subject to a class B misdemeanor primary offense becoming a class A misdemeanor.

article thumbnail

March 2018 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The California federal court said the substantive legal issues in the District of Wyoming case were distinct from the procedural issues at issue in this action. A few days after the California court issued its order, North Dakota and Texas asked the Wyoming federal court to lift a stay that the court had imposed in December 2017.

Court 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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.

Court 42
article thumbnail

The Land that Law Forgot: The Supreme Court and the New York Legal Wasteland

JonathanTurley

Through various contortions, Bragg converted a dead misdemeanor case into 34 felonies in an unprecedented prosecution. New Yorkers and the media insisted that such selective prosecution was in defense of the “rule of law.” The court ruled that a jury had to decide this issue unanimously under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal 56
article thumbnail

August 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The plaintiffs cited three reasons that the case was not moot: (1) President Biden’s revocation of the presidential permit could be vacated in the pending Texas v. Biden , No.

Court 40