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
A California state court concluded that they were liable to the buyer for that nondisclosure, though the bankruptcy court concluded that Kate herself did not participate in the fraud. Barrett’s last major point discusses an 1885 Supreme Courtdecision ( Strang v.
Share The court will hear its second bankruptcy case of the week next Tuesday, with Bartenwerfer v. Dissatisfied with the purchase, Buckley eventually obtained a judgment in a California state court based on the failure of the Bartenwerfers to disclose information about the house on the standard-form Transfer Disclosure Statement.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. But in one of those cases, the court’s denial of review prompted two justices to object. The Supreme Court will meet this Friday to consider whether to grant review in a group of around 95 petitions and motions.
The Trump administration prepared an application on Sunday asking the US Supreme Court to remove a lower court order blocking the firing of the head of the Office of Special Counsel. ” The administration based its argument on several recent Supreme Courtdecisions. Seila Law LLC v.
Share The Supreme Court on Friday left in place for now an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented from the courtsdecision not to act on the Trump administrations request. Dellinger went to federal court to challenge his firing. declined to intervene.
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