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 Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas reversed the Board’s decision without affording any deference to the agency’s interpretation of the relevant statute. Later, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals held that a court must defer to an administrative interpretation only if the court finds a statute to be ambiguous.
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.,
Last year, the Supreme Courtruled 5-4 in McGirt v. The court thereby stripped Oklahoma state courts of jurisdiction over crimes committed by “any Indian” in “Indian country,” and bestowed the federal government with exclusive jurisdiction to try these crimes. Finally, Estate of Madison Jody Jensen v.
Here, first the conflict-of-law issue to be dealt with is the source of law that is to be used to determine the relevant statute for recourse. In its decision of 3 March 2021, the Federal Court of Justice endorsed an alternative approach based on Article 19 of the Rome II Regulation and Article 7 para.
The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted BLM’s and federal officials’ motion for voluntary remand without vacatur of claims that they failed to comply with NEPA in connection with 27 oil and gas leasing decisions across Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Montana between September 2016 and March 2019.
The trial penalty that coaxes both the guilty and innocent to enter pleas is exacerbated by mandatory minimum statutes, which trigger automatic penalties if invoked by the prosecutor, as well as sentencing enhancements within the discretion of the prosecutor, such as whether to file notice with the court of a prior offense.
There is a troubling case in Panguitch, Utah where a woman has reportedly been charged with a hate crim e for allegedly “stomping on a ‘Back the Blue’ sign” at a gas station. For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The outcome can be laid at no door but ours.
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. In re Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance , No. IBLA 2019 94 (IBLA Sept. 1:19-cv-02751 (D.D.C.,
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.
The federal courtruled resoundingly in favor of SIFMA, finding for plaintiffs on all counts. Further, the court noted that ERISA’s savings clause, essentially an escape hatch from preemption, would not allow for the rules’ survival because the laws “pose an obstacle” to ERISA’s comprehensive scheme. The appeal of Utah v.
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. Swiss CourtRuled that Imminent Danger of Climate Crisis Justified Protesters’ Actions. City of Oakland v.
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The court further found that EPCA’s legislative history did not support the plaintiff’s “expansive interpretation.” The cases were filed in 2016 , 2020 , and 2021.
COUNT FOUR (Violation of a Public Safety Statute: D.C. COUNT FIVE (Violation of a Public Safety Statute: D.C. In 2011, the courtruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. Code § 22-1322 – Incitement to Riot).
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