JURIST
OCTOBER 16, 2023
The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from North Carolina on Monday over the constitutionality of a state law allowing employers to sue employees working as undercover investigators. ” The denial from the Supreme Court offered no explanation or reasoning. .” The challenged statute, N.C.
JonathanTurley
OCTOBER 10, 2022
A tragedy in North Carolina could present rather difficult torts questions in a wrongful death case for a grieving family. While I am not a North Carolina lawyer, the state does not appear ideal for plaintiffs in this type of action and the facts of the case could present other difficulties.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
NOVEMBER 28, 2022
University of North Carolina, which are poised to determine the role of affirmative action in college admissions. The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Harvard College and SFFA v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
SCOTUSBlog
SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
On Friday, the justices agreed to decide whether the Nollan / Dolan test applies to a California man’s challenge to a development fee, or whether – as a California appeals court ruled – the fee is instead immune from such review because it was authorized by legislation. A federal appeals court ruled that Fikre’s case was not moot.
SCOTUSBlog
JULY 3, 2022
This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether two groups of North Carolina employees were denied pay or benefits by the state in violation of a federal employment law and the Constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled for the employees.
Conflict of Laws
FEBRUARY 22, 2024
Because the claims were based on Pennsylvania statutes, it argued, they were barred by the choice-of-law clause. The trial court ruled in favor of GLI. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of Raiders. Raiders opposed this motion.
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 31, 2022
In her initial expert disclosures, plaintiff identified Dr. Steege from Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The trial court ruled that “Dr. Steege did not meet the locality rule outlined in Shipley v. Code Ann. § 26-26-115(b). Williams , 350 S.W.3d 3d 527 (Tenn. 2011),” and accordingly excluded his testimony.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
230 
Let's personalize your content