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
King sued them under the Federal Tort Claims Act and under Bivens v. Justin Sneed murdered Barry Van Treese, owner of an Oklahoma City motel, in one of the guest rooms. Oklahoma (resulting from Glossip’s fourth and fifth applications to that court for post-conviction relief), Glossip now seeks relief from the Supreme Court.
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the ongoing opioid litigation and an important ruling out of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. ” The Oklahoma Supreme Court last week struck down a $465 million opioid award against Johnson & Johnson based on a legal theory that has previously been tried and failed against guns.
Brownback , involving whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “judgment bar,” which bars any claim based on the same subject matter as a dismissed FTCA case, applies when both the actions were originally brought together. The Supreme Court did not grant review in any new cases since our last installment. In Cargill , the en banc U.S.
Yes, the statute really does have a full cite to the opinion in it. Brownback , 22-912 Issue : Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s judgment bar, which this court has repeatedly said functions in much the same way as the common-law doctrine of res judicata, nevertheless operates to bar claims brought together in the same action.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed , holding that because a federal agency now has the final say over how the private horse-racing authority implements the federal statute, the amended law did not impermissibly delegate authority to a private entity. In a one-paragraph order, the justices granted the authoritys request. Franklin 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