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 The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the case of a Texas death-row inmate seeking DNA testing for evidence that he believes will clear him. A federal appeals court threw out Rodney Reed’s federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas law governing DNA testing, explaining that Reed had filed his suit too late.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas and Governor Greg Abbott in his official capacity on Wednesday over a state law that criminalizes illegal entry into the border state from anywhere but a port of entry, exerting state jurisdiction over what is usually a federal matter. Last month, Abbott signed SB 4.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived the case of a man on death-row in Texas who is seeking DNA testing to provide evidence that he asserts will clear him. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that Rodney Reed had filed his challenge to the Texas law governing DNA testing too late.
Texas presents yet another installment in the decades-long conflict between state gambling regulators and Native American tribes. In 1983, responding to a lower-court decision holding that the transfer of those trust responsibilities violated the Texas Constitution, Texas terminated the trust relationship.
Texas was another instance of a common jurisprudential problem for the justices: how should a modern court, largely devoted to textualism in its statutory interpretation, deal with cases about Native American tribes, which traditionally have depended on historical and contextual understandings only weakly linked to the text of the statute.
Reed’s case raises a statute of limitations question about whether such a claim can be brought at the end of state court litigation or at the moment a trial court denied DNA testing. See also: I s Texas Ignoring DNA Evidenced in Rodney Reed Case?
Share The Supreme Court on Monday sent a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites back to the lower courts for another look. Texas and Florida passed the laws at the center of the two cases in the wake of Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S.
Monolithic”) in the Western District of Texas, alleging Monolithic infringed Bel Power’s patents by selling power modules for use in electronic devices. However, the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Monolith Power Systems, Inc. may have reopened that question. Bel Power Solutions Inc. (“Bel Bel Power”) sued Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Share On Tuesday the justices will hear oral argument in the case of Texas death-row inmate Rodney Reed , who is seeking DNA testing for evidence that he believes will clear him. The question that the justices will consider in Reed’s case is when the statute of limitations to pursue a federal civil rights claim begins to run.
The underlying actions were filed by a patent holding company known as Ikorongo Texas LLC against Samsung and LG Electronics. As explained below, the owners of Ikorongo Texas formed the company as an attempt to solidify venue in W.D.Texas and avoid the case being transferred for inconvenient forum. Thus, no proper venue.
Thus, the statute provides a district court with discretion to move venue “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” An oddity of patent litigation jurisprudence is that Section 1404 determinations are not deemed patent-law specific. ” 28 U.S.C.
Reynolds Vapor Company and a group of retailers based in Texas and Mississippi, primarily fielded questions from just two justices, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson a promising sign for his clients. As a practical matter, he asked Suri, why is it inconvenient for the government to litigate in one circuit instead of another?
For those unfamiliar with how cases are assigned in district courts, let’s use the Western District of Texas as an example. The Western District of Texas is a vast district, stretching more than 600 miles across from El Paso (on the western limits of the state) to Waco (which is much nearer to Louisiana than New Mexico).
Ikorongo Texas LLC, et al. Ikorongo Texas LLC holds exclusive rights to a set of patents, but only with respect to use of the inventions in counties within the Western District of Texas. This includes McLennan County, home of Waco Texas and Judge Albright’s court. . § by Dennis Crouch. Samsung Electronics Co.,
In a recent decision out of the Southern District of Texas, Judge Lee Rosenthal found the patent infringement case brought by VDPP against Volkswagen to qualify for sanctions under the Patent Act 35 U.S.C. § The court also relied upon 28 U.S.C. 1927 and its inherent powers to directly sanction VDPP’s attorney William P. ” Id.
As high-profile police killings persist, many victims have turned to private litigation as a path to justice. While Section 1983 was integral to early civil rights litigation, in the context of police misconduct the statute reinforces the understanding of “individual perpetrators causing individual harm.”.
1983 ; they are not forced into federal habeas litigation that is procedurally doomed. The Heck bar is a big deal to death-sentenced prisoners who challenge execution methods, because those challenges almost always ripen after the first round of federal habeas litigation finishes. But Texas had to change a regulation, not a statute.).
Jessie is a board certified trial paralegal in Texas. She’s a litigation paralegal at Heygood, Orr & Pearson (no relation to me). Litigation Paralegal Boot Camp Are you still waiting for on-the-job training that takes you through each phase of a litigation case and shows you what you can do to support your attorneys?
The justices agreed to hear the case of Texas inmate Rodney Reed , who was sentenced to death for the 1996 rape and murder of Stacey Stites. A state trial court turned him down, prompting Reed to file a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas law governing post-conviction DNA testing.
Under the statute for patent litigation venue, venue is proper in a judicial district if either (1) the defendant is incorporated in the district or (2) the defendant infringes within the district and also has a “regular and established places of business” in the district.
Case in point: Texas v. That case, which involved Texas’ challenge to a regulation that delegated governmental authority to an actuarial group to set standards for Medicaid reimbursement, had been rescheduled twice and relisted six times going into last Friday’s conference. Texas , a capital case from the Lone Star State.
To create the compact, each state passed statutes and, as New York’s bill of complaint indicates is a constitutional requirement for interstate compacts, Congress consented as well. However, in 2018, New Jersey passed a statute to withdraw from the compact, and on Dec. Texas Entertainment Association, Inc. However, the U.S.
The question is whether the United States is such a successful litigant that the court will grant review even in cases it doesn’t want the court to review. The next two relists raise a related question: whether a habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. Texas , 21-6001. Federal Trade Commission. Returning Relists.
Courts are themselves a key part of the access to justice problem: opaque, duplicative and confusing court forms and burdensome filing processes make accessing the civil justice system deeply inefficient for the sophisticated, and an impenetrable maze for the 70+% of civil litigants who don’t have a lawyer.
In 1998, petitioner Rodney Reed was convicted in Texas state court of the murder of grocery store clerk Stacy Stites and sentenced to death. Goertz , Reed seeks review, arguing that other circuits would not start running the statute of limitations until the end of the appeals process, which in Reed’s case did not occur until October 2017.
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for mandamus seeking to overturn a district court order transferring a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The statute at issue 28 U.S.C. In re Haptic, Inc. , 2024-121 (Fed. June 25, 2024). 3d 201 (5th Cir. 3d 1194(Fed.
Texas , 21-5050. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals (as the U.S. Texas , 21-6001. relisted after the April 1 conference). Returning Relists.
According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process claim begins to run at the end of the state-court litigation. Reed then sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C.
At that time, patent litigation was highly concentrated in the Eastern District of Texas, and the proper venue statute, 28 U.S.C. The pre- TC Heartland nullification of the proper-venue statute (§ 1400(b)) was a but-for cause of the E.D. Texas is a proper venue for Apple; It also seems like it is pretty darn convenient.
Some language was included as an amendment, but only time will tell if that language holds up to litigation of the issue. Courts have repeatedly reiterated that the legislative purpose of the homestead exemption statutes is to allow the family to prevent judgment creditors from taking the family home.(ii)
Bruen invokes the authority of history but presents a version of the past that is little more than an ideological fantasy, much of it invented by gun-rights advocates and their libertarian allies in the legal academy with the express purpose of bolstering litigation such as Bruen.
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. Texas prisoner Anibal Canales Jr. Texas , 21-6001. United States. United States and Ruan v.
The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. The parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue. A lot of litigation power is being spent on whether or not the plaintiff’s choice of judge (Judge Albright) will stick.
Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Another important rule is the framework for confirming or vacating an arbitration award; Sections 9 and 10 of the statute set out rules for that process, which generally make it easy to get an award confirmed by a court. But in Badgerow v.
5] This is largely attributed to the stability of Delaware corporate law, the predictability of corporate litigation, and the expertise of the Court of Chancery. [6] 13] His decision to move Teslas and SpaceXs incorporation to Texas have reinforced the perception that the state is no longer as business-friendly as it once was. [14]
Three courts of appeals have adopted a literal interpretation of the law, he said, “to criminalize only the making of statements that are false,” while four others (including the one in which he was convicted) “interpret the statute more broadly” to apply also to misleading statements. Texas & Interim Storage Partners v.
The Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in December in Concho Resources v. Samson drilled a well on the disputed 154-acre tract, leading to the litigation. Ellison sued all three for conversion and for payment of amounts due under the division order statute, Texas Natural Resources Code section 91.404. Ellison , No.
Texas , involving allegations that a racially biased juror, who commented during voir dire that “non-white” races were statistically more violent than whites, served on petitioner Kristopher Love’s capital sentencing jury. was filed by a plaintiff seeking to enforce a similar registration statute. In Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v.
Back in 2021, Bel Power sued Monolithic for patent infringement in Waco Texas. Proper venue is rarely a big deal these days in Federal Litigation. Congress amended the venue statutes so that, in most cases, venue rises and falls with personal jurisdiction. by Dennis Crouch. In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 21-cv-00655.
Animal Legal Defense Fund , involving the constitutionality of a Kansas statute criminalizing trespass by deception at animal facilities with intent to damage the enterprise. Goertz , involving the question of what statute of limitations state prisoners face when raising claims seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence.
A federal court in California convicted Hansen of multiple counts of fraud, as well as convincing customers to overstay their visas and participate in his adoption program in violation of the encourage-or-induce statute. District courts have discretion to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences unless a statute mandates otherwise.
Saenz : The case involves whether a Texas death-row inmate can sue the state forDNAtesting in support of his innocence claim. United States: The supervised-release statute, 18 U.S.C. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the justices: Gutierrez v. Goertz , 598 U.S. ” In this case, a divided panel of the U.S.
Texas , 21-5050. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals (as the U.S. Bruce Church, Inc. relisted after the Jan. 18 and Feb. 25 conferences). 18 and Feb.
In Broadnax’s case, a Texas court had already rejected his challenge that racial bias tainted his trial, in which a nearly all-white jury convicted him, a Black man, of murdering two white victims. Federal law curtails the extent to which a federal court can consider arguments that a prisoner has not presented in state court. Broadnax 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