Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135
edits
GregG
Joined December 11, 2011
→Court cases I'm following: update
: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 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).
: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).
:The law was permanently enjoined on Friday, January 17.
;''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.