Court Strikes Allegations About Israeli History from Lawsuit Alleging Anti-Semitism at CUNY
"Requiring Defendant to either admit or deny allegations regarding historical events that took place in 136 C.E. would serve no purpose."
"Requiring Defendant to either admit or deny allegations regarding historical events that took place in 136 C.E. would serve no purpose."
"I don't even care if you or your mom are inside. I actually hope you are. You both deserve to die. I am going to kill you, Robyn. I don't understand why you don't get that. I will burn you. You will die."
Foreign Law in American Courts
holds a federal court in declining to enforce the Beijing judgment, and in therefore concluding that Stanford holds title to documents donated to the Hoover Institution by a Chinese Mao-era dissident.
Two different pieces of legislation aim to create state workarounds to the procedural quagmire of federal civil rights litigation.
Not the misconduct itself, but noted in the court's opinion as one of the items plaintiff had sought to withhold from discovery: "During a separate text conversation on May 11, 2018, Plaintiff texted Mr. Roe: 'If I had 5 dollars for every gender, I would have 5 dollars coz women are objects.'"
"Courts cannot accept a model where an entity has a public-facing identity which it then renounces based on its behind-the-scenes activity."
Aimen Halim sued Buffalo Wild Wings, saying he was tricked into buying chicken breast nuggets when he thought he was getting deboned wings.
A federal district court rules that the case should go back to Minnesota state court, rather than being in federal court.
The magistrate judge is not amused.
"[T]he sheer breadth of the discovery sought in Türkiye's Application, considered in light of the colorable allegations of political motivation presented in support of Turkyolu's motion, weighs heavily against the Application at this time."
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 ...."
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks