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
Share In the midst of a national opioid crisis that claimed more than 100,000 lives in this country over the past year, the Supreme Court will hear a case on Tuesday about the relevance of doctors’ subjective intentions in criminal prosecutions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances. While on the surface, the case, Ruan v.
by Dennis Crouch The Supreme Court will be handling some significant cases over the next few months that may have a major impact for folks working in IP & Tech fields. The question is whether his intent (mensrea) matters, or can he be convicted based only upon the reasonably perceived threat of the recipient.).
The FTC commonly uses that authority to seek what it characterizes as “restorative” monetary awards on the theory (supported by old Supreme Court cases and dominant for half a century in the courts of appeals) that the statutory authority to obtain an “injunction” implicitly includes all traditional forms of equitable relief.
We note our prior writings on the subject, which extend to five pages of posts , We note further that the JAMA editorial cites our own John Fleder , which makes sense since John is one of the foremost experts on Park liability from his time at the Department of Justice’s Office of Consumer Litigation as well as private practice with our firm.
Supreme Court issued numerous landmark decisions in 2020, among those—for trademark scholars and practitioners— Romag Fasteners, Inc. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Opinions. 3 However, because the district court also found that Fossil had not acted willfully, the district court refused Romag’s request for a profits award.
In a parallel vein, the Juvenile Justice Act was passed into law in order to shield minors from crimes like “sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography” and to provide for the institution of Special Courts to conduct special proceedings for crimes of such manner as well as connected concerns and occurrences.
At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause in an original writ proceeding. Electronic court reporting. The court agreed to decide an original writ petition seeking an increased use of electronic recording when court reporters are unavailable. The court barely denied review in People 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