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 Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed Tuesday a $465 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for public nuisance through its prescription opioid marketing campaign in the state. The Court applies the nuisance statutes to unlawful conduct that annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of others.
Share On Thursday, the Supreme Court held that a federal prisoner cannot raise a claim of legal innocence if he has already challenged his conviction – even if that claim was unavailable at the time he filed his challenge. The court’s decision in Jones v. Nearly two decades later, the Supreme Court decided in Rehaif v.
In a ruling that will have major implications for tribal justice, the Supreme Court has ruled that Merle Denezpi’s double-jeopardy rights under the Fifth Amendment were not violated by a second, federal court prosecution following his conviction and sentencing by a Court of Indian Offenses for the same incident, SCOTUSBlog reported.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, a direct challenge to the court’s ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma , a confrontation clause question involving statements about possible future crimes, and a split over the scope of who is covered by the qualified immunity doctrine.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. At this Friday’s conference, the Supreme Court will thus begin the process of considering what cases to review next fall during October Term 2022. The district court and U.S. What’s the difference ?
Share At the last Supreme Court oral argument of Justice Stephen Breyer’s career, the court stepped into a dispute over the state of Oklahoma’s criminal jurisdiction authority in Indian country. Oklahoma v. The case comes on the heels of the court’s monumental 2020 decision, McGirt v.
The state of Oklahoma put James Coddington to death on Aug. It marks the beginning of a busy period at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary’s execution chamber. Photo courtesy Oklahoma Dept. Today, fewer jurisdictions are using the death penalty, but some – like Oklahoma – seem to be doubling down. James Coddingon.
The answer the court gave was a stern rebuke, vitiating the plenary control that lower-court decisions had granted the state for more than a quarter of a century. The most controversial provisions of that statute, addressed in Ysleta , are the provisions that govern the tribes’ subjection to Texas gambling regulations.
. “It” being today’s Supreme Court’s opinion in Shalabi v. First, the court resolves a statute of limitations issue. ” Thus, the plaintiff’s lawsuit was brought within the applicable two-year statute of limitations when he filed suit on his 20th birthday. .”
The department pointed to the Arizona statute allowing a defendant sentenced to death to choose between lethal injection or lethal gas at least 20 days before the execution date. Lethal gas is permitted for executions in six other states: Alabama, California, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Wyoming.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. But the law caught the attention of a number of states and industry players, which have been fighting it in court ever since. The district court dismissed both claims. In Oklahoma v.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. The Supreme Court has returned from its summer break and gotten down to business. The court agreed to review a dozen petitions from that conference. Several of them are sequels to earlier high court decisions.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, claims from two criminal defendants under the Speedy Trial, which dictates timeframes for different stages of criminal prosecutions. In such cases, the court must “set[] forth” the reasons for its findings, according to statutory factors.
Imagine you need to research legislative history to determine the meaning of an ambiguous statute, these are the folks who can teach and help you take a deep dive into the committee notes, revisions, and everything you would need to determine the legislative intent for the statute. I would not miss this one.
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear argument on that question in Yellen v. Oklahoma last term, the court confronted the complex past of Oklahoma’s Native nations, Chehalis turns on the unique legal history of Alaskan Natives. A federal district court in D.C. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. After a dispute over the trademarks for remote controls used to operate heavy construction equipment, a jury awarded Oklahoma-based Hetronic International, Inc. A short explanation of relists is available here.
Supreme Court held that the trademark infringement provisions of the Lanham Act do not apply extraterritorially, but rather extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. The District Court also entered a permanent injunction preventing Abitron from using Hetronic’s marks anywhere in the world.
By Sarah Burstein, Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Presumably, this acronym is meant to suggest that these are new types of designs, uncontemplated by Congress when it passed statutes that—according to some—are in need of “modernization.”. For prior PatentlyO coverage, see here.) In Feist v.
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the ongoing opioid litigation and an important ruling out of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. ” The Oklahoma Supreme Court last week struck down a $465 million opioid award against Johnson & Johnson based on a legal theory that has previously been tried and failed against guns.
Share The Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday in Denezpi v. United States , which examines whether the federal government can bring criminal charges in federal court against a defendant previously found guilty in a Court of Indian Offenses for an offense stemming from the same act.
A few states, including New Jersey and Florida, have passed criminal statutes making pirate radio illegal, but such enforcement, in the few cases that I have dealt with in those states, has tended to be a low enforcement priority for state authorities. What is the reality of this actually happening?
Share Last week the Supreme Court held in Abitron Austria GmbH v. that the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, reaches only conduct “where the claimed infringing use in commerce is domestic” and that confusion to consumers in the United States is not relevant to the analysis. In 1952, the court held in Steele v.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. The Supreme Court did not grant review in any new cases since our last installment. The court did, however, deny review in one case that had been relisted three times – King v. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. Just before the Supreme Court begins its new term on the first Monday in October , the court gathers to consider all the hundreds of cert petitions that have built up over the summer. At issue in Oklahoma v.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. Since our last installment , the Supreme Court has continued slowly chipping away at the still-sizable number of lingering relists from the end-of-summer “long conference.” Court of Appeals for the D.C.
The Texas Supreme Court upheld a statutory ban on gender-affirming care for minors on Friday. The Texas Supreme Court found that SB 14 does not infringe on the parental right to make medical care decisions for their children because that right competes with the interest of protecting children from harm.
One clinic in Oklahoma said “the numbers of calls it received from Texans increased from approximately three to five calls per day to between fifty and fifty-five.” The US Supreme Court declined to order an injunction that would have halted the enactment of this law which subsequently went into effect on September 1.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. At this Friday’s conference, the Supreme Court will vote to grant the last cases that will be argued this term (barring expedited briefing on some emergency matter). The court earlier asked for the U.S.
Federal Court Found Flaws in New Climate Change Analysis for Wyoming Oil and Gas Leases. The federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that the U.S. Second, the court concluded that BLM should have calculated and considered total greenhouse emissions, instead of merely relying on comparisons of yearly emission rates.
Share On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether federal trademark law applies to trademark infringement that takes place outside the United States. The facts Hetronic, based in Oklahoma, manufactures and sells radio remote controls that operate heavy-duty construction equipment. In Abitron Austria GmbH v. It owns U.S.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. Yes, the statute really does have a full cite to the opinion in it. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the California law requiring escrow interest was not preempted by the National Bank Act.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. The Supreme Court worked through two thirds of last week’s new relists, though with very different results. The court granted review in Delligatti v. A short explanation of relists is available here.
District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the states’ claims, ruling that the negative economic effects of the $10,000 cap were not so severe as to impermissibly coerce the states into changing their policies. The district court also ruled that a flat dollar cap on the deduction was not unlawful. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
There are several statutes that form the basis of our antitrust laws. Indeed, the Supreme Court established Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. Texas, Kentucky, and others, most recently Oklahoma, have all released their own blacklists of financial companies prohibited from doing business with those states. FTC , 312 U.S.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court Wednesday struck down two abortion bans as unconstitutional, but abortion remains illegal in the state. In its decision, the court referenced a prior ruling in which it found an “inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.”
Its legal proceedings take place out of public view, under seal, with a low standard of evidence and often a court-appointed attorney for the fetus — but none for the person gestating it. Once the court has exercised this jurisdiction, she says, “they’re free to do all kinds of stuff that are ‘in the best interests of the unborn child.’ ”.
In the complaint filed with the District Court of Southern Iowa, the groups claim that Iowa has exceeded its power by intruding on areas of law reserved to the federal government. They first argue that the federal government has exclusive power to regulate immigration and that Iowa’s law conflicts with federal immigration statutes.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. The Supreme Courts upcoming conference the second January conference — is ordinarily the justices last opportunity to add new cases to the docket in time for them to review and decide the disputes by the summer recess.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday morning declined to take an appeal by anti-abortion activists in a First Amendment dispute with Planned Parenthood, as well as a test of New Jersey’s “slogan statutes.” courts Dermody v. The specific question at issue in Mazo v. 6 attacks on the U.S. International Paper Co.
Additionally, travel distance is a known barrier to care that jeopardizes health, which the court recognized in 2016 in Whole Woman’s Health v. People from states with restrictive regimes, like Oklahoma , already are traveling to states that protect access. Hellerstedt.
Investors who want the flexibility to consider all relevant risks to their investments have challenged these rules and laws in court, and, in both state and federal cases, the effort has succeeded. The federal court ruled resoundingly in favor of SIFMA, finding for plaintiffs on all counts.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. After going two conferences without any new relists, the Supreme Court ended the relist drought this week with a vengeance. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to lift those orders while they appealed.
Louisiana filed suit in the US District Court for its Western District, leading a cohort comprising Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. ” Wyoming filed a separate complaint in the federal District Court for its own state.
Intratek Computer , the government will weigh in on the effect of a federal whistleblower statute on an arbitration agreement between an employer and its employee. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and C.H. A three-judge district court ruled that D.C. The state courts agreed, prompting Louisiana to come to the court.
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