SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 20, 2022

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.

Statute 106

Statute Stare Decisis Court Manufacturing 106

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 27, 2022

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.

Statute 95

Statute Stare Decisis Court Drafting 95

SCOTUSBlog

MARCH 20, 2023

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?

Stare Decisis 96

Stare Decisis Laws Statute Construction 96

SCOTUSBlog

JUNE 7, 2022

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.

Stare Decisis 98

Stare Decisis Government Court Litigating 98

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 12, 2022

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. (relisted after the Jan. 25, March 4, March 18, March 25 and April 1 conferences). Goertz , 21-442.

Stare Decisis 113

Stare Decisis Court Statute Litigation 113

SCOTUSBlog

MARCH 30, 2022

Andrus argues that the Texas court “disregard[ed] this Court’s determinations and legal precedents to strain for a result that it prefers,” and in the process violated “vertical stare decisis,” the principle that lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.

Stare Decisis 109

Stare Decisis Court Felony Statute 109

SCOTUSBlog

JANUARY 16, 2024

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.

Stare Decisis 145

Stare Decisis Court Statute Government 145

SCOTUSBlog

NOVEMBER 29, 2021

Mississippi acknowledges that it must overcome the principle of “stare decisis” – the idea that courts should normally follow their prior precedent. But here, the state insists, the “stare decisis case for overruling Roe and Casey is overwhelming.” Stare decisis and the Kavanaugh test.

Stare Decisis 144

Stare Decisis Court Laws Statute 144