Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: − ;''Applewhite v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania'', before Pa. Supreme Court − :ACLU-led challenge to Pennsylvania's [[Voter ID]] law. Judge Simpson denied the Petitioners' motion for an injunction barring the enforcement of the law, given that Pennsylvania's Department of State is scheduled to roll out a special ID that does not require a birth certificate or a Social Security card, and given that there is a post-election opportunity to challenge the exclusion of a ballot due to enforcement of the Voter ID law. − :On September 18, the Supreme Court remanded to Commonwealth Court for Judge Simpson to make another determination as to whether all eligible Pennsylvania voters will be able to obtain voter ID before the November elections. − :On October 2, Judge Simpson issued a preliminary injunction for the 2012 election in November. In that election, poll workers will request ID, but those not providing ID will cast regular ballots and will not have to take further steps that would otherwise be required (such as later providing an ID). − :Portions of the law (including the photo voter ID provision at the polls) were permanently enjoined on Friday, January 17. The portion of the law pertaining to absentee ballots was not challenged and remains in effect.
→Court cases I'm following: remove out-of-date information
(Note that since I do not have PACER access and some of the cases I follow are state court cases, this information may be incomplete. Also, I may neglect to update it on a regular basis.)
(Note that since I do not have PACER access and some of the cases I follow are state court cases, this information may be incomplete. Also, I may neglect to update it on a regular basis.)
;''Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.'', before Cal. Supreme Court
;''Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.'', before Cal. Supreme Court
:After SCOTUS's ''[[AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion]]'' decision holding state rules requiring class actions to be available as preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant Valencia's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the contractual provision for an appeal in certain circumstances and the carve-out for relief Valencia would be likely to seek was substantively unconscionable. Valencia petitioned for certiorari, and the California Supreme Court granted it; the Supreme Court will determine whether the Court of Appeals' refusal to enforce the arbitration provision on the grounds of the one-sidedness of the appeals clause and the carve-out for relief likely to be sought by Valencia is also preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
:After SCOTUS's ''[[AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion]]'' decision holding state rules requiring class actions to be available as preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant Valencia's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the contractual provision for an appeal in certain circumstances and the carve-out for relief Valencia would be likely to seek was substantively unconscionable. Valencia petitioned for certiorari, and the California Supreme Court granted it; the Supreme Court will determine whether the Court of Appeals' refusal to enforce the arbitration provision on the grounds of the one-sidedness of the appeals clause and the carve-out for relief likely to be sought by Valencia is also preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.