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 Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to weigh in on the bid for compassionate release by a NewYork man convicted of murder for hire a quarter-century ago. A federal district judge in NewYork granted Fernandezs motion, reduced his sentence to the time that he had served, and ordered his release.
Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech. The courtruled that newspapers and television stations that post articles on social media sites like Facebook are liable for other third party comments on those posts. 47 U.S.C. §
The First Circuit reversed a trial court that dismissed the case, alleging that the American firearms industry is legally responsible for violence in Mexico. However, as a torts professor, there is a question of whether the tort element of proximate cause could be materially changed in the case.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of an innocent Atlanta family, represented by IJ, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team. New on the Short Circuit podcast : A whodunit with a serial-fabulist detective. Per Justice Robert Jackson , "it is not a tort for the government to govern.")
This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider cases and statutes about suing various government entities, ranging from two counties to a state governor to the United States itself. Waterfront Commission of NewYork Harbor v. The governor argued that sovereign immunity barred the suit.
United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued a ruling in NewYork to apply Virginia’s choice of law standard that in turn applied California’s defamation laws. He is facing criminal charges in NewYork. In my torts class, I teach defamation and often discuss the California retraction law.
Indeed, this Court has consistently recognized that making "conduct" illegal or tortious abridges free speech when the conduct consists of speech that supposedly causes harm because of what it communicates. The speech integral to illegal conduct exception only applies to speech that promotes some other crime or tort [A.] Argument [I.]
The case is brought under statutes like 18 U.S.C. Supreme Courtruled against a provision of federal law that banned computer simulations and virtual pornography under the first amendment. In NewYork Times v. Civil and statutory claims can be curtailed by constitutional limitations. This is such a case in my view.
It could be claimed that she became a limited public figure subject to the higher standard of proof in NewYork Times v. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.”
Below is an expanded version of my column in the NewYork Post on the return of Halloween and joy of little litigators in anticipation of the return of the festival of Samhain. The result is a wicked brew of negligence, product defects, intentional torts, and every other tort and crime known above the netherworld.
Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.
On October 19, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied a natural gas pipeline developer’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of its ruling that upheld the NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s) denial of a water quality certificate for the pipeline. 3:17 -cv-02824 (N.D.
As October Term 2021 winds to a close, the Supreme Court is holding its penultimate scheduled conference this week. Hochul , involving NewYork State’s mandate that health care workers must have received a COVID-19 vaccination to remain on the job. First up is Dr. A v.
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. NewYorkCourt Dismissed Challenge to Local Zoning Law that Restricted Development of Solar Facilities.
If the renewal license was an order, the First Circuit asked the state court to address whether the CCA expressly preempted the ordinance challenged in this case. Federal Court Dismissed “Frivolous” First Amendment Claims by Man Who Sought Distribution of Position Paper Referring to Climate Change as “Malicious Hoax”.
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. The challengers then sought Supreme Court review. 10 conference.)
A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Colorado recommended that the court grant an underground coal mine operator’s motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act citizen suit that alleged the mine required a Prevention of Significant Deterioration construction permit and a Title V operating permit. 1:20-cv-01342 (D.
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.
Putting aside a later defamation action (though the statute of limitations is a concern), the filing could present an interesting question of whether the statute can be used to chill or curtail free speech. That was the concern that led the Supreme Court to curtail defamation actions.
The state's age-verification requirement "imposes a clear burden," the Free Speech Coalition told the Supreme Court, "forcing adult users to incur severe privacy and security risks—which the statute leaves largely unaddressed—before they can access constitutionally protected speech." We'll see what we get.
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