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
Washington. Andrus further argues that the Texas court’s decision conflicts with “vertical staredecisis,” the principle that lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. In June 2020, the Supreme Court issued a summary reversal – meaning it decided the case without merits briefing or oral argument – in Andrus v.
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 staredecisis,” the principle that lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.
The court will hold the other case raising that question, Ham v. Breckon , pending the outcome in Jones. This week we have only one new relist: Thomas v.
The district court held that the federal Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations is jurisdictional, concluded that a reasonable landowner would have known that the government had been permitting public use of the road since the 1970s, and dismissed the case. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed. That’s all for this week.
Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. relisted after the Jan. 25, March 4, March 18, March 25 and April 1 conferences). Goertz , 21-442. 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.
Both cases present the question whether statutes that authorize appellate courts to review final agency adjudications implicitly strip district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to those proceedings. The next two relists raise a related question: whether a habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. Federal Trade Commission.
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.
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.
Thus, the court will revisit its nearly 40-year-old precedents holding that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is jurisdictional. To begin with, the statute requires that the lawsuit be retained under seal while the government investigates the allegations. The Supreme Court’s sprint to the end of the term continues.
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.
The Washington Post confirmed that the United States is one of only seven out of the world’s 198 countries that allow for abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.). To uphold Roe , the court likely will require more than the usual arguments of staredecisis , the doctrine that the court should generally stand by its precedents.
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