Patently O

MARCH 16, 2024

Section 1983, which was originally enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, provides a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives someone of their federal constitutional or statutory rights. Maryland , 378 U.S. ” 42 U.S.C. Quoting Griffin v. 130 (1964).

Government 62

Government Court Statute Cause of Action 62

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

DECEMBER 11, 2020

The case was currently pending before the Fourth Circuit after a federal district court in Maryland held that Maryland law preempted the local law. The companies filed their brief on November 16, arguing that the Fourth Circuit erred by concluding that it was limited to reviewing removal based on the federal-officer removal statute.

Court 55

Court Government Litigation Litigating 55

JonathanTurley

OCTOBER 30, 2022

See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. Maryland v. OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. She landed on a fire escape and then fell down some stairs.

Tort 37

Tort Litigation Litigating Manufacturing 37

JonathanTurley

OCTOBER 31, 2021

See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. Maryland v. OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. Janik (2009). Kansas City Light & Power Company v.

Tort 38

Tort Litigation Litigating Manufacturing 38

JonathanTurley

OCTOBER 30, 2023

See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. Maryland v. OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. She landed on a fire escape and then fell down some stairs.

Tort 47

Tort Litigation Litigating Manufacturing 47

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JULY 2, 2021

The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” Living Rivers v. Hoffman , No. 4:19-cv-00057 (D. Utah June 21, 2021). In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.

Court 45

Court Statute Litigation Litigating 45