Remove 2024 Remove Contract Remove Court Rules Remove Statute
article thumbnail

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Great Lakes

Conflict of Laws

On February 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. The question presented was whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the U.S.

Court 68
article thumbnail

Twelve cases added to Supreme Court calendar

SCOTUSBlog

The cases granted on Friday will likely be argued in January or February 2024, with a decision to follow by summer. The question comes to the court in the case of George Sheetz , who in 2016 applied for a permit to build a 1,854-square-foot manufactured home on land that he owns in Placerville, California. In 2022, in Siegel v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Application of Singapore’s new rules on service out of jurisdiction: Three Arrows Capital and NW Corp

Conflict of Laws

One of them considers the ‘appropriate court’ ground for service out of jurisdiction provided in Order 8 rule 1(1) and touches on the location of cryptoassets; the other is on Order 8 rule 1(3). A parallel provision to Order 8 rule 1(3) can be found in the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (‘SICC Rules’).

Court 68
article thumbnail

Bahraini High Court on Choice of Court and Choice of Law Agreements

Conflict of Laws

Similarly, the foreign law chosen as the governing law of a contract is often not applied because of the procedural status of foreign law as a matter of fact, the content of which must be ascertained by the party invoking its application. Pursuant to Article 4 of Law No. 231/2005 of 27 February 2006 ). Girsberger et al. 414 ff).

Court 68
article thumbnail

Mandatory minimums, payday lending, and voting rights in first session of Supreme Court term

SCOTUSBlog

But the lower courts ruled, and the federal government contends, that the “safety value” is only available to defendants who do not have any of the indicators. And when that principle is applied, it contends, the choice-of-law provision in its contract with Raiders Retreat is enforceable.

Court 138