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 problem, however, was that these insights were impossible to access, especially for attorneys at the state trial court level. There was no effective way to perform practical legal research on state trial court records. State trial court was too scattered, too clunky and too inconsistent to prove useful. The result?
By following its details closely, we can begin to unravel the strategic importance of judicial research and analytics for civil litigation at the state trial court level. By following its details closely, we can begin to unravel the strategic importance of judicial analytics for civil litigation at the state trial court level.
At its conference yesterday, a double one, the Supreme Court’s actions of note included: Taxpayer standing. The court granted review in Raju v. ” The delays at issue began after a three-month COVID-pandemic shutdown of the superior court. .” The court will also hear People v. Navarro below.)
Sywula sued for correction of invention, and the District Court initially dismissed the case on standing, but – after an amended complaint – has now agreed that Sywula has met the requirements to survive a pleading-stage demurrer. Standing to Sue : Federal Courts can only hear “actual cases or controversies.”
Both district courts dismissed infringement lawsuits at the pleading stage and the “abstract idea” question was up on appeal. In Iqbal and Twombly , the Supreme Court reinterpreted this rule to require nonconclusory allegations of specific facts that make the cause-of-action plausible. Oct 13, 2022).
At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, actions of note included: Four-justice concurring statement leaves open future remedies for defendant who made “disastrous decisions” at trial Employment timekeeping. The court agreed to hear Camp v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th The court granted-and-held Dhital v.
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