Constitutional Law Reporter

FEBRUARY 28, 2024

Kirtz , 601 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S. Given that the United States, as a sovereign, is generally immune from suits seeking money damages unless Congress chooses to waive that immunity, the Court’s “clear statement” rule allows a suit against the government only when “the language of the statute” is “unmistakably clear” in allowing it.

Court Rules 52

Court Rules Court Cause of Action Statute 52

Patently O

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

by Dennis Crouch and Timothy Knight On February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Warner Chappell Music v. Although the statute does not make any distinction between a right to file an action and a right to back damages, the distinction stems from ambiguous dicta in the Court’s 2014 Petrella v. .”

Statute 67

Statute Court Cause of Action Attorney 67

Conflict of Laws

APRIL 25, 2024

The wide-reaching effect of a previous Court of Appeal decision on the interpretation of gateway (n) which covers a claim brought under statutes dealing with serious crimes such as corruption and dug trafficking and ‘any other written law’ is also yet to be grasped by litigants. [5] 1] [2024] SGHC 21. [2] 7] [2024] SGHC 21 [46]. [8]

Court 67

Court Cause of Action Laws Contract 67

Constitutional Law Reporter

FEBRUARY 8, 2024

Under Chevron , courts must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency is charged with administering, even if they are inclined to rule another way. The Court’s Chevron decision established a bedrock principle of administrative law. The cases before the Court, Relentless, Inc.

Statute 52

Statute Cause of Action Entertainment Court 52

Constitutional Law Reporter

APRIL 10, 2024

Freed , 601 U.S. _ (2024), the U.S. In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized that Section 1983 provides a cause of action against “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or us- age, of any State ” deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right. In Lindke v.

Court 52

Court Cause of Action Government Court Rules 52

Patently O

MARCH 16, 2024

2024) 22-611_ap6c. This recent decision from the Supreme Court case grapples with the issue of when a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action for purposes of a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. 2024) 22-324_09m1. by Dennis Crouch Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. ” 42 U.S.C. Garnier , 601 U.S.

Government 62

Government Court Statute Cause of Action 62

Patently O

MARCH 18, 2024

256 to correct inventorship on an issued patent. . = = = One interesting aspect of this decision relates to absence of a statute of limitations. The Patent Act includes a 6-year statute of limitations, but as written it only applies to cut-off recovery for patent infringement — and does not apply to lawsuits to correct inventorship.

Statute 57

Statute Cause of Action Court Rules Court 57