-
Medical malpractice lawsuits rise in Philadelphia after Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule change
Late very last 12 months, the household of a 9-yr-outdated boy who fractured his jaw at a Nemours Children’s Medical center clinic in Montgomery County was ready to sue for negligent treatment. Their attorney waited a several weeks, hoping to improve their likelihood of a productive verdict when a alter in condition regulations authorized them to attempt their circumstance in a Philadelphia courtroom, alternatively of the county where the injury transpired. » Browse Much more: Significant shift in medical malpractice regulations in Pa. could assist victims, but opponents fear the cost Philadelphia juries tend to make a decision healthcare malpractice circumstances in favor of plaintiffs a few periods extra frequently…
-
In a Rare Decision On Abandoned Property Law, The US Supreme Court Rules Against Delaware
On February 28, 2023, the US Supreme Court docket issued its final decision in the abandoned home lawsuit, Delaware v. Pennsylvania (see https://www.supremecourt.gov/thoughts/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf) The concern dealt with by the Courtroom centered on which state was entitled to accumulate unclaimed home, which arose from two money products marketed by banking institutions on behalf of Moneygram: Agent Checks and Teller’s Checks (collectively, the “Checks”). Next the framework founded in the seminal scenario of Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U. S. 674 (1965), since Moneygram did not have the name and tackle of the homeowners of the Checks, Moneygram experienced been escheating (that is, having to pay in excess of to the state) the money…
-
Supreme Court on Abandoned Property Lawsuit
On February 28, 2023, the US Supreme Court docket issued its choice in the abandoned property lawsuit, Delaware v. Pennsylvania (see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf) The issue tackled by the Court docket centered on which state was entitled to accumulate unclaimed assets, which arose from two fiscal products offered by banking institutions on behalf of Moneygram: Agent Checks and Teller’s Checks (collectively, the “Checks”). Subsequent the framework proven in the seminal circumstance of Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U. S. 674 (1965), simply because Moneygram did not have the title and deal with of the owners of the Checks, Moneygram had been escheating (that is, paying out over to the state) the resources fundamental these…
-
States prevail over Delaware in unclaimed property case at the Supreme Court
All nine Supreme Court Justices sided with a group of 30 states in a dispute with Delaware over hundreds of millions of dollars of unclaimed checks issued by MoneyGram, a money transfer company. The Court held that the unclaimed checks must be sent to the states where they were purchased, and not to Delaware, the company’s state of incorporation. The case turned on the interpretation of the Federal Disposition Act,1 a federal statute enacted by Congress in 1974, which governs escheatment of money orders “or other similar written instruments.”2 The Court held that the MoneyGram checks were similar to money orders, and therefore the federal statute determines which state can escheat the unclaimed…
-
As U.S. Supreme Court weighs YouTube’s algorithms, ‘litigation minefield’ looms
Court to listen to arguments on Tuesday in Portion 230 case Web firms protected from liability for person written content Slain woman’s household appeals ruling in YouTube dispute WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) – In 2021, a California point out courtroom threw out a feminist blogger’s lawsuit accusing Twitter Inc (TWTR.MX) of unlawfully barring as “hateful carry out” posts criticizing transgender persons. In 2022, a federal court in California tossed a lawsuit by LGBT plaintiffs accusing YouTube, element of Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), of limiting material posted by gay and transgender people today. These lawsuits were being amid many scuttled by a powerful sort of immunity enshrined in U.S. legislation that addresses…
-
U.S. Supreme Court spurns attorney-client privilege fight in crypto tax probe
Jan 23 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court docket on Monday threw out a circumstance about the scope of lawyer-client privilege involving a law firm’s bid to withhold documents from prosecutors relevant to a cryptocurrency-endorsing consumer in a tax investigation. The unsigned one-sentence ruling “dismissed as improvidently granted” an enchantment by an unnamed legislation company of court docket orders keeping it in contempt for not turning over information relevant to a person of its clientele in reaction to a federal grand jury subpoena. The justices did so only two weeks immediately after hearing arguments in the scenario. A lot of of the aspects of the case are unclear, as the…
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/QRIEEC6TUNHS7NVPW5IUY4IQAE.jpg?w=1140&resize=1140,0&ssl=1 "Medical malpractice lawsuits rise in Philadelphia after Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule change")
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/C6H4MYMDRRJD3HAGZ3VABT73UQ.jpg?w=1140&resize=1140,0&ssl=1 "As U.S. Supreme Court weighs YouTube’s algorithms, ‘litigation minefield’ looms")
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/MSVFKJQ4FBLZDCDXL6RPA3WRZU.jpg?w=500&resize=500,330&ssl=1 "Judge dismisses Whole Foods workers’ lawsuit over ‘Black Lives Matter’ masks")
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/EH4Q25MNVVMJDE5HU3ZXDOF2JA.jpg?w=1140&resize=1140,0&ssl=1 "U.S. Supreme Court spurns attorney-client privilege fight in crypto tax probe")
