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 US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from NorthCarolina on Monday over the constitutionality of a state law allowing employers to sue employees working as undercover investigators. ” The denial from the Supreme Court offered no explanation or reasoning.
United States , the 1950 Supreme Court case holding that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by members of the armed forces while on active duty and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. United States. relisted after the Sept. 28 and Oct. 7 conferences).
A tragedy in NorthCarolina could present rather difficult torts questions in a wrongful death case for a grieving family. While I am not a NorthCarolina lawyer, the state does not appear ideal for plaintiffs in this type of action and the facts of the case could present other difficulties.
In her initial expert disclosures, plaintiff identified Dr. Steege from Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina. The trial courtruled that “Dr. Steege did not meet the locality rule outlined in Shipley v. Merely being licensed in Tennessee or a bordering state is not enough if the expert cannot also meet the locality rule.
The non-profit has now also filed a petition in a challenge to the University of NorthCarolina that it hopes can serve as a companion to the Harvard case. In early November, the district courtruled that UNC’s use of race in admissions was consistent with Supreme Court precedents. University of NorthCarolina.
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