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
Supreme Court arguments, the fate of a new wave of lawsuits against special purpose acquisition companies and the future of shareholder claims of artificial intelligence malfeasance are among the issues that securities practitioners are following as the second half of 2024 unfolds in the courts. A pair of anticipated U.S.
district courts allege that banks and their broker affiliates are generating substantial revenues from the idle cash while only a small percentage goes to their clients. Theoretically, the funds are automatically transferred to a higher-interest savings account or other investment vehicle.
million judicial opinions published between 2000 and 2016 by federal and state courts in Pennsylvania. Courts failed to address 1,774 of those claims. They identified 7,207 separate claims of prosecutorial misconduct over that 17-year period. In the remaining 5,432, misconduct was found in just 204 cases?or or less than 4 percent.
The Apex Court itself identified these outrageous costs as one of the major reasons responsible for the hindrance to the growth of arbitration [12]. Court of Wards [15] where it was clarified that as long as the funding for the process was for a portion of the proceeds, it was not illegal. In 1939, a stance was taken in Ram Surap v.
In a stunning development today in Massachusetts, a Middlesex County Superior Court judge unsealed records revealing the state concealed information for years that showed other chemists and supervisors may have engaged in wrongdoing at a beleaguered crime lab where rampant misconduct led to tens of thousands of wrongful drug convictions.
In 2020, the cancelation of parades and the reduction of travel has led to a very different legal profile of holiday mishaps and malfeasance. The litigation over last year’s lettuce recall has only just started due to the statute of limitations. Some things are happily left out of the courts. Some 1,800 ate the catered meal.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday had mostly bad news for shareholders of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their lawsuit seeking to unwind a 2012 agreement that required the companies to transfer profits to the federal government. Three shareholders went to court to challenge the 2012 amendment.
In other words, the president cannot remove them from their office except for specific reasons such as neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. This echoed the US Supreme Court 1935 ruling, in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
District Judge Amy Berman Jackson accomplishes, Dellinger told the justices, is to maintain the status quo allowing him to remain in office while the district court engages in extremely expedited proceedings to address the merits of the parties underlying dispute. The Trump administration then came to the Supreme Court on Feb.
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 courts decision not to act on the Trump administrations request. Dellinger went to federal court to challenge his firing. declined to intervene.
Share The Trump administration on Sunday asked the Supreme Court to block an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., Sundays filing was the first time that the Supreme Court has been asked to intervene in one of the lawsuits filed to challenge actions taken by Trump and his administration since his inauguration on Jan.
Bush, one Trump judicial appointee to the district courts have in common? Before jumping into the cases though here is a breakdown of current federal district court judges by party of appointing president (data from fjc.gov ). What do five Biden, two Obama, one George W. The split is approximately 54% Democratic to 46% Republican.
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