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 This week we highlight petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether an award of punitivedamages that doubles the compensatory damages can comport with due process and how a defendant can prove ineffective assistance of counsel in rejecting a plea offer. After a jury trial in the U.S.
by Salih Okur (University of Augsburg) On 8 and 9 March, scholars from more than a dozen different jurisdictions followed the invitation of Tobias Lutzi to discuss recent trends in punitivedamages at the University of Augsburg, Germany. The conference contained five panels overall, which were split into three blocks.
On the heels of the high fashion retailer and the magazine publisher pushing back against the models’ claims in respective motions to dismiss, and a NewYork federal court stripping down the case, Condé Nast is trying to get the rest of the case – including the plaintiffs’ right of publicity and unjust enrichment claims – tossed out. .
The NewYork Times lost a critical effort to block the defamation lawsuit brought by University of Alabama basketball player Kai Spears. We have previously discussed retraction statutes that can limit damages or actions. ” The NewYork Times issued a correction, but not a retraction.
Federal prosecutors in NewYork indicted the bank in 2019 on charges that it had participated in a multi-year scheme to launder billions of dollars stemming from the sales of Iranian oil and natural gas, in violation of U.S. But the court left the door open for the bank to press a different immunity argument in the lower courts.
There are 33 states with retraction statutes. If a full and effective retraction is issued (and published as prominently as the offending statement), it can limit damages or bar punitivedamages entirely in some states. In NewYork Times v. Other states effectively make such a letter a required step.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in NewYork Times v. compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitivedamages. American courts have long recognized that broad defamation rule are inimical to free speech. 47 U.S.C. §
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. 2020.001343 ). “A
The companies filed their brief on November 16, arguing that the Fourth Circuit erred by concluding that it was limited to reviewing removal based on the federal-officer removal statute. EPA’s rescission of the methane standards for new sources has been challenged in the D.C. NewYork v. NewYork v.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S.
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. 2020.001343 ). “A
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. 2020.001343 ). “A
“The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants”, NewYork University Law Review 94 (2019), pp 1210-1243. Coco, Sarah E. Cong, Junqi. 2020.001343 ). “A
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S.
Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), forthcoming (Draft available here ). The 2005 Hague Choice of Court and the 2019 Hague Judgments Conventions versus the NewYork Convention – Rivals, Alternatives or Something Else?”, The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S.
847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), pp. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E. 8 (2021), pp.
847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), pp. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E. 8 (2021), pp.
847-880 (available here ) Brannigan, Neil “Resolving conflicts: establishing forum non conveniens in a new Hague jurisdiction convention”, Journal of Private International Law 18 (2022), pp. Implementing the Hague Judgments Convention”, NewYork University Law Review 97 (2022), pp. 187-214 Coco, Sarah E. 8 (2021), pp.
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.
In a pair of orders, the jury will be allowed to award punitivedamages and his experts would be allowed to be heard by the jury on the merits of the case. The punitivedamages decision is particularly interesting legally. The court found that CNNs retraction was insufficient to remove punitivedamages from the table.
The lecture culminated in a lively discussion regarding the ground of refusal for judgments on exemplary or punitivedamages (Art. With particular focus on the parallels to the NewYork Convention, she raised the question of the appropriate intensity of public policy control. 7 (1) lit. 2 HCCH 1958 until Art.
On October 19, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied a natural gas pipeline developer’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of its ruling that upheld the NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s) denial of a water quality certificate for the pipeline. Resolute Forest Products, Inc.
Lacewell , a challenge to a NewYork regulation that requires employers to fund abortions through their employee health plans. involving whether punitivedamages that are twice compensatory damages, and fall within a state’s statutory punitivedamages cap, are constitutionally excessive.
It also seeks nominal, compensatory, consequential, and punitivedamages; and attorneys’ fees and costs. Putting aside a later defamation action (though the statute of limitations is a concern), the filing could present an interesting question of whether the statute can be used to chill or curtail free speech.
Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. In both cases, the NewYork plaintiffs argue that the allocation of the summer flounder quota is based on obsolete data that does not reflect the fishery’s northeast shift, which may be due in part to ocean warming.
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