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
This constitutional claim is analogous to the tort of malicious prosecution, as the gravamen of both is initiation of criminal charges without probable cause. The elements of the constitutional claim match those of the tort. Alito’s dissent.
Konan to determine whether the Federal Tort Claims Act provision exempting claims arising from the loss or miscarriage of letters or postal matter extends to claims that the Post Office deliberately refused to deliver mail to an address. The Supreme Court made short work of two of last weeks first-time relists. But on appeal, the U.S.
Konan sued the USPS under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting claims under Texas law for nuisance, tortious interference, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In an unusual move, Konan, reprented by the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, has filed a conditional cross-petition ( Konan v.
At its last conference, it granted review of a one-time relist asking whether federal courts must follow state law requiring medical malpractice claims to be supported by an expert affidavit. The Supreme Court is hitting its stride in sorting through the relists. New Relists Escobar v. Relisted after the Dec. 28 and Mar. 7 conferences.)
The company and the Oklahoma justices are right on the law. Public nuisance was originally addressed in England by criminal laws against such offenses as obstructing “the King’s highways.” Yet the torts system has an elaborate and well-functioning system of product liability. In State v.
We have previously discussed “ Castle Doctrine ” and “ Stand Your Ground ” laws. Dghoughi came to this country from Morocco and obtained a master’s degree in financial analysis from RhodeIsland’s Johnson & Wales University. The SYG law states in part : Sec. Raymond , 23 Colo.
The states also allege that suits involving the interstate effects of pollution are exclusively governed by federal common law and belong in federal court to avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments. Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.) Ocean State Tactical, LLC v.
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. RhodeIsland Federal Court Denied Motion to Stay Remand Order in RhodeIsland’s Climate Change Case. RhodeIsland v. BP p.l.c. ,
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. First Circuit Certified State Law Preemption Questions in Case Challenging Local Ordinance Prohibiting Crude Oil Loading at Harbor. RhodeIsland v.
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. State court proceedings in RhodeIsland’s case were put on hold in August pending the U.S. RhodeIsland v. Portland, Oregon. and non-U.S.
But in response to legal challenges, Congress amended the law in 2022 to give the FTC the power to make changes to the authoritys rules. They argued that the law was unconstitutional because it delegated federal power to a private company a concept known as the private nondelegation doctrine. The en banc 4th Circuit upheld the law.
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. RhodeIsland , No. First, the court found that Exxon failed to show that federal common law justified removal, even if it might provide a defense.
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. The cities also have filed a motion to amend their complaints to withdraw federal common law public nuisance claims that they added after the district court denied remand.
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