A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected a challenge by former United Auburn tribal chairwoman Jessica Tavares and other dissident members who charged they were illegally banished and denied their shares of profits from the lucrative Thunder Valley Casino near Lincoln.
On March 20, 2017, the Iowa House of Representatives voted to pass HF 579, a new sentencing reform bill that would build on the successful reforms implemented last year.
In Noble v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., the plaintiff, after purchasing a smartwatch that advertised “24 to 48 hours with typical use,” found that the device’s batter only lasted for a few hours. When he determined that other customers were experiencing the same issue, he filed a class action complaint in federal court. Samsung then sought to compel arbitration based on a clause in the “Health and Safety and Warranty Guide,” which is included in every box when purchased.
Watching the debate in this country over public safety, you’d think some people wish to live securely, while others welcome Armageddon. Conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly recently went after “liberal politicians” in Chicago and San Francisco, noting crime in those cities and saying, “The situation is out of control and a disgrace, and that’s what happens when incompetent politicians demand the police stop enforcing laws.”
English Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Abuse of Process in Subsequent Litigation Collaterally Challenging an Arbitral AwardLord Peter Goldsmith QC, PC, Aimee-Jane Lee and Boxun Yin
The English Court of Appeal in Michael Wilson & Partners v. Sinclair  EWCA Civ 3 has clarified that a subsequent litigation is not an abuse of process for being a collateral attack against a previous arbitral award, where the respondent to the litigation was not a party to the earlier arbitration. The case reiterates that non-parties to an arbitral award are not bound by it, but in so doing are exposed to the risk of being separately sued in court.
There have been reports of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents asking people entering the U.S. to unlock their electronic device and inspect it. More often than not, a refusal to hand over the device and passcode could result in it being seized and the person could be kept in physical detention for refusing to comply.