Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
215 results for '* topic:"Constitutional Law"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-08-23
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Justice Hardiman
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John C. Sahradnik and Mathew B. Thompson (Berry Sahradnik Kotzas & Benson); Jeffrey R. Lindsay (Cape May County Department of Law); Michael L. Testa, Jr. (Testa Heck Testa & White P.A.)
for defendant: Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Michael R. Sarno, and Daniel M. Vannella (Office of Attorney General of New Jersey)
Case Number: 20-2754 & 20-2755
Federal Statutes Governing Actions by State Could Not Preempt State-Issued Directives to State Agencies and Political Subdivisions
Publication Date: 2021-08-10
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Hardiman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-2755
Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their complaints.
Publication Date: 2021-07-19
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Automotive
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Diamond
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0829
Plaintiff, a car financing entity and lien holder, demonstrated that the Township of Aston violated its due process rights through its treatment of seized vehicles and deprivation of creditor's collateral while that collateral's value depreciated. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Publication Date: 2021-07-05
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Lesson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0756
In this action against East Hempfield Township and related parties wherein plaintiff alleged that defendants colluded to violate their civil rights in connection with the passage of a local wireless facilities ordinance, the complaint was deficient as it prevented defendants from properly responding. The court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice in part.
Publication Date: 2021-06-14
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Ambro
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0666
The court rejected defendant's claim that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) violated the second amendment as applied to him and others subject to protective orders lacking an explicit finding that they posed a credible threat to family members, holding defendant failed to distinguish himself from a class of presumptively dangerous persons who have historically been excluded from second amendment protections. The appellate court affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Ron M. Campbell
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-06-14
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Brobson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0665
The trial court erred in finding that Stroud Township's firearm ordinance, which restricted the right to use personal property as a private shooting range to just two zoning districts, was facially constitutional as the ordinance burdened more conduct than necessary to meet the important governmental interests at issue. The commonwealth court reversed.
Publication Date: 2021-05-31
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0607
Court reconsidered its review of act 12 of 2019 and found act pertained to the provision of "basic necessities of life to certain low-income individuals," the topic fit within the single subject rubric and fact that some of the provisions raised revenue for the assistance did not violate Art. III of the Pennsylvania constitution nor did it violate the "original purpose rule." Preliminary objections sustained.
Publication Date: 2021-04-05
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry:
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0375
Department filed preliminary objections to petitioner's petition asserting act 12 of 2019 violated art. III, §§1 and 3 of the Pennsylvania constitution and court rejected petitioners' contention that because some of the provisions of act 12 raised revenue for health care assistance, it violated the single-subject rule of the Pennsylvania constitution and found the amendments to house bill 33 did not change the original purpose of the bill and its title did not deceive. Preliminary objections sustained.
Publication Date: 2021-04-05
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0360
Petitioners, medical providers licensed to provide abortion services in the state, lacked standing to challenge the Medicaid coverage ban on abortion services on the basis of constitutional rights belonging to third parties, i.e., women enrolled in the state's Medicaid program. The commonwealth court dismissed the petition for review.
Publication Date: 2021-02-22
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Brann
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0185
The Department of Corrections' administrative grievance procedure does not require that an aggrieved prisoner name the individuals allegedly involved in an incident; therefore, plaintiff did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies as to certain defendants not specifically named in his administrative grievance. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read