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
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and reject a ruling observers said would gut the government’s primary anti-fraud statute. The justices and the litigants devoted substantial time discussing when a party’s decision to adopt an objectively reasonable, but incorrect, interpretation would satisfy the FCA’s knowledge requirement.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that his action was untimely because more than two years – the applicable statute of limitations – had run since the state trial court in 2014 denied his request for DNA testing. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. That’s all for this week. Until next time, stay safe !
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. Last up is Grzegorczyk v.
In 1981, Congress passed a statute requiring that reimbursement rates paid to organizations for managing state Medicaid plans must be “actuarially sound.” Iowa — and otherwise commandeering state courts and state agencies to carry out a federal child-placement program. Next up is Texas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 21-379.
What are the issues presented by this dueling litigation? As most radio stations don’t have individuals at their stations familiar with music licensing practices, it is difficult to imagine the small station in Ottumwa, Iowa or Elko, Nevada, or Dothan, Alabama each negotiating with all of the songwriter representatives.
Justice Thissen’s opinion also held that the statute did not create the racially disparate impact of felony disenfranchisement. However, Justice Natalie Hudson said in her dissent that the statute creates racial disparities and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Derivative Litigation , No. and non-U.S. 19-1189 (U.S. filed Sept.
Muller is the Bouma fellow in law and professor of law at the University of Iowa College of Law. The other was a statute enacted in 2016, which limited third parties — postal workers, election officials, caregivers, family members, or household members — who could collect completed absentee ballots from voters.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. The fossil fuel companies removed the case in March 2021, citing five grounds for removal, including the federal officer removal statute.
Nevertheless, then-FBI Director James Comey declared that “although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”. The Justice Department explained in an Aug. 16, 2016, letter to Sen.
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