Union Pacific Scores Win In Chicago Metra Rail Line Fight law360.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from law360.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Further Clarifies Alien Tort Statute; Revisiting WOTUS | Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
The Supreme Court of Ohio heard the case on Wednesday. Author: Kevin Landers Updated: 9:25 AM EDT April 29, 2021
MARYSVILLE, Ohio Union County homeowners west of Marysville say they’re tired of seeing trains sit idle at intersections, sometimes for longer than an hour, preventing them from getting to where they need to be.
“It s a big inconvenience when you live 10 minutes from town and it takes you a half-hour to get there or longer, said one homeowner, who did not want to share his name.
But it’s more than time wasted in the car that has people like him frustrated.
The District of Columbia District Court recently issued the first judicial interpretation of 49 US Code Section 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii), which sets out an evidentiary exemption relating to certain agreements among railroads. On its face, the decision s reach appears limited. However, the opinion provides insight into the judicial interpretation of antitrust exemptions and practical reminders for rail and other industries that have legitimate, and sometimes legally protected, communications with competitors.
Staggers Act
In 1980 Congress enacted the Staggers Rail Act as part of the deregulation of the rail industry to allow for more competition between railroads and between rail and other modes of transport such as trucking. Section 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii), recodified without substantive changes in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 1995, provides for the exclusion of evidence relating to and bars inferences arising from discussions and agreements coordinating so-called inter
BIPA Preemption is Punted Past Initial Pleading Stage Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Once again, we find ourselves reviewing a pertinent decision regarding the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). For our new readers, BIPA regulates the sale and storage of “biometric information”. In 2008, when the legislature enacted it, BIPA was acknowledged as forward thinking. Since then, it has consistently raised novel issues in litigation. A recent case revisits an issue that we have discussed before: whether certain federal statutes may preempt BIPA. In this case, ultimately, the court was unable to reach the issue at the earliest pleading stage. Read on to learn more.