Remove Cause of Action Remove Court Remove Litigating Remove Statute
article thumbnail

No cause of action against employers for take-home COVID

At the Lectern

Victory Woodworks , the Supreme Court today holds that employers currently can’t be sued for failing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members. Allowing liability “would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy,” the court says. In Kuciemba v.

article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms That Parties Can Contractually Shorten Statute of Limitations Period for Copyright Infringement Claims

The IP Law Blog

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether parties can contractually agree to shorten the statute of limitations period for bringing a copyright infringement claim. Normally, the statute of limitations for a copyright violation is three years. In an unpublished opinion in the case, Evox Productions, LLC v.

Statute 98
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

Discovering the Limit: Calculating the Copyright Damages Timeline

Patently O

by Dennis Crouch The Copyright Act has a seemingly simple three year statute of limitations: No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued. Nealy, 22-1078 (Supreme Court 2023). ” Warner Chappell Music, Inc. 663 (2014). Aktiebolag v.

Statute 123
article thumbnail

Supreme Court clarifies employment harassment statute of limitations issue and bars assessing appellate costs against many losing plaintiffs

At the Lectern

Tri-Modal Distribution Services , the Supreme Court today interprets the statute of limitations for employment harassment cases to give certain plaintiffs more leeway to bring their lawsuits, and it protects many unsuccessful plaintiffs from paying defendants’ appellate costs.

Statute 40
article thumbnail

Court revives DNA evidence case of Texas man on death-row

SCOTUSBlog

Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived the case of a man on death-row in Texas who is seeking DNA testing to provide evidence that he asserts will clear him. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that Rodney Reed had filed his challenge to the Texas law governing DNA testing too late.

Court 86
article thumbnail

Court explores continued private enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

Talevski did not reveal a Supreme Court ready to reconsider or overrule a line of cases allowing private suits for damages in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Robbins responded that private litigation is antithetical to the substantial enforcement power and discretion FNHRA accords states and the secretary of health and human services.

Court 87
article thumbnail

SCOTUS Sides With Death Row Inmate in DNA-Testing Case

Constitutional Law Reporter

Supreme Court held that death row inmate Rodney Reed did not wait too long to seek DNA testing of the evidence in his case. According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.

Statute 52