Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Jarkesy – which was decided the day prior and limited the ability of agencies to impose penalties through internal tribunals instead of jury trial in court – were seen as cumulation of the current Supreme Court's efforts to weaken the administrative state as part of a conservative agenda against big government. [21] [22]
As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. [1] The longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is 136 years, for the common law Admiralty cases Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 476 decision in 1855, overruled by the Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines Inc., 500 U.S. 603 decision ...
NRDC won the case in a federal court, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision and ruled in favor of Chevron on the grounds that the courts should broadly defer to EPA and other independent regulatory agencies. Chevron was one of the most important decisions in U.S. administrative law and was cited in thousands of cases. [4]
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9–0 vote that the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution, which was substantially similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures.
The Tillinghast/Towers Perrin study has been criticised by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank: [103] [citation needed] "Although TTP's estimate is widely cited by journalists, politicians, and business lobbyists, it is impossible to know what the company is actually measuring in its calculation of tort costs, and impossible ...
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to ...
Insurance bad faith is a tort [1] unique to the law of the United States (but with parallels elsewhere, particularly Canada) that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.
The third part of the test in Caparo—whether the extension of liability is "fair, just and reasonable" (commonly known as policy considerations)—has been of relevance in a variety of contexts including controversial "wrongful conception" claims, and cases regarding the extent of liability that should be imposed on emergency services.