Abortion, Colorado River, and Interpleader
The true superpower of the lawyer is to turn all questions into questions about procedure—often, about procedure about procedure.
The true superpower of the lawyer is to turn all questions into questions about procedure—often, about procedure about procedure.
Can plaintiffs be sanctioned because they "refused to voluntarily dismiss [a defendant] after reviewing the additional information from his cell phone and bank records" that seems to exonerate him?
A district judge had "found the provisions likely unconstitutional and issued a nationwide injunction" against them; the Fourth Circuit just stayed that injunction, pending full consideration of the issue on appeal.
CAIR's allegedly libelous press release about a dismissed former high-level employee "opened the door" to discovery about various allegations the employee had made about CAIR.
Seems hard to justify, especially since corporations are treated quite differently; but there it is.
The court concludes that X's requested discovery is broader than necessary, though it leaves open the door to some considerably narrower discovery.
The Supreme Court created, then gutted, a right to sue federal agents for civil rights violations.
The decision rejects a system in which the agency imposes civil penalties after investigating people and validating its own allegations.
OpenAI tried to remove Mark Walters' lawsuit to federal court, but has now withdrawn that attempt.
"The subpoena is ... a classic ‘fishing expedition’ in constitutionally protected waters.”
A good illustration of how this principle can work.
Among other things, "Default judgment will be entered against Giuliani as a discovery sanction ..., holding him civilly liable on plaintiffs' defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage claims ...."
"and the 'victimhood' of white women." "In support of its decision, the court ... pointed to defense counsel's description of Henderson as 'quite combative' on the witness stand and her description of Thompson as 'intimidated and emotional about the process.'"
So the California Court of Appeal has held, concluding that there is enough of a factual dispute (under California's plaintiff-friendly pleading standards) for the case to go forward.
"Plaintiff's allegations of political retaliation and torture are highly concerning. Nevertheless, this Court is bound by jurisdictional limits and grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction."
Take the No-Procrastination Pledge.
"in a suit over alleged pressure on social media firms to censor posts on topics like Covid-19 vaccines and election fraud."
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10