In Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, the U.S. Supreme Court cited Restatement of the Law, Conflict of Laws and Restatement of the Law Second, Conflict of Laws in clarifying that an aggrieved party has alleged a “domestic injury” for purposes of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act “when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the Untied States.”
The Ties that Bind Us: An Empirical, Clinical, and Constitutional Argument Against Terminating Parental Rights
This Article explores the unnecessary termination of a child’s relationship with their parent from an empirical, clinical, and constitutional lens.
In a dissenting opinion in Haaland v. Brackeen, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas cited Principles of the Law, Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations § 2.02 in arguing that Congress lacked the authority to enact the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Recently, in interpreting the False Claims Act’s scienter requirement, the U.S. Supreme Court turned to the traditional, common-law scienter requirements for fraud set forth in the Restatement of the Law Second, Torts, and the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm.
In Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act.
The Supreme Court ruled that Hennepin County’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owner.