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
Those who spoke extensively, however, seem ready to reject the government’s argument that the statute of limitations at issue here is a strict jurisdictional rule, as opposed to a “mere” claims-processing rule, which could be waived in an appropriate case. It has staredecisis effect.”
Although these decisions may not have as significant an impact in patent law as in other areas, they do pose interesting puzzles with respect to staredecisis as well as agency rulemaking and discretion that will provide many litigation opportunities going forward. establishing and governing inter partes review.”
1983 — which allows private suits for state and local deprivations of rights secured by federal law—to enforce federal statutes enacted under Congress’ spending clause power. VCR is a government nursing facility in Indiana owned by petitioner Health and Hospital Corp., Background. a municipal entity.
Minerva contends that it has a statutory right to challenge invalidity; the statute does not have any textual exceptions for patent assignors. In addition to all of the above, Hologic argues that the court should maintain the doctrine because of staredecisis. A possible middle ground. But a middle ground exists.
The relevant statute , regulating disability benefits, provides that “the United States will pay [compensation] to any veteran” who is “disabled” as a result of (1) “personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty,” or (2) “aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty.” military veterans.
Andrus further argues that the Texas court’s decision conflicts with “vertical staredecisis,” the principle that lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. Intellectual disability and the death penalty.
On this front, the court largely embraced the middle ground the government advanced in a friend-of-the-court brief. The government’s brief urged the court to preserve assignor estoppel but limit it “to its equitable core.” To resolve this dispute, the court sent the case back to the lower courts, which had not ruled on the issue.
Similar constitutional challenges have been brought against a range of California laws governing subjects from foie gras to low-carbon fuel , but despite a relist or two along the way, the court has taken none of them. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. That’s all for this week. Until next time, stay safe !
The district court held that the federal Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations is jurisdictional, concluded that a reasonable landowner would have known that the government had been permitting public use of the road since the 1970s, and dismissed the case. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed. New Relist.
By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
This week they’re replaced by three new relists, all involving government petitions in one way or another. Both cases present the question whether statutes that authorize appellate courts to review final agency adjudications implicitly strip district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to those proceedings.
Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. was filed by a plaintiff seeking to enforce a similar registration statute. Returning Relists.
Thus, the court will revisit its nearly 40-year-old precedents holding that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is jurisdictional. The FCA gives the government a fair amount of ability to control the litigation. The Supreme Court’s sprint to the end of the term continues. United States. United States and Ruan v.
GOVERNING LAW: The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA without regard to the principle of conflicts of any jurisdiction.”. Its argument, inter alia , was that by virtue of Article 12 and 13 of their agreement, the Nigerian court had no jurisdiction in this case.
Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws.
The court asks if there is a “clear, affirmative indication” from the face of the statute that Congress intended the law to apply extraterritorially. Therefore, a party claiming that a federal statute applies extraterritorially can have essentially two bites at the apple. Has Congress directly spoken here?
Justice John Paul Stevens set out a two-part test for courts to review an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. If it has not, the court must uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it is reasonable.
Groff assures the court that it can overturn Hardison without worrying about staredecisis – the idea that courts should not overrule their prior cases unless there is a compelling reason to do so – because the Supreme Court in Hardison was not interpreting Title VII at all.
9] In fact, many sports leagues benefit from this exemption when it comes to the rules that govern their relationship with the players. [10] 13] The Court defended the exemption largely on the grounds of staredecisis and congressional acquiescence, tasking Congress with changing the long-standing law if they felt the need. [14]
The court had ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects the right to have a firearm in the home, and in 2010 it had affirmed that both states and the federal government must respect that right. Kurtzman to determine whether a government law or practice violates the establishment clause. In Kennedy v.
Against staredecisis. Many amici focus on the principle of staredecisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case. Americans United for Life argues that “ Roe and Casey contradict the staredecisis values of consistency, dependability, and predictability and are entitled to minimal staredecisis respect.”
In the Texas cases, the justices will decide whether abortion providers or the federal government can sue to block the law’s unusual private-enforcement structure. Mississippi acknowledges that it must overcome the principle of “staredecisis” – the idea that courts should normally follow their prior precedent.
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