In civil cases, damages are the remedy that a party requests the court award in order to try to make the injured party whole. Typically damage awards are in the form of monetary compensation to the harmed party. Damages are imposed if the court finds that a party breached a duty under contract or violated some right.
Can Florida obtain an apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin to permit fresh water to flow into the Apalachicola Region?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Florida is entitled to an apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin against Georgia. Plaintiff Florida argues that Georgia’s use of the water is unreasonable because of mismanagement and waste and that Georgia’s use harms Florida’s oyster fisheries. Florida argues that it is entitled to relief because even an extra 1,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) of water will greatly benefit Florida, whereas the cost to Georgia is low and can be mitigated by water conservation methods. Defendant Georgia argues that Georgia’s use is reasonable because Florida’s models for consumption are incorrect and that the water is used for important purposes such as irrigation. Georgia also argues that a cap on its consumption would yield little benefit to Florida because of how the United States Army Corps of Engineers operates its dams and reservoirs and would be extremely costly for Georgia to implement. The outcome of this case will have implications for the sharing of water resources by neighboring states, state economies, and the environment.
Whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and appropriate injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into the Apalachicola Region.
The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin is an interstate basin created by the confluence of three rivers—the Chattahoochee River, the Flint River, and the Apalachicola River. Florida v.
Does an arbitration agreement containing a provision that excludes certain claims from arbitration negate a provision in the same agreement that delegates the question of whether an issue should be heard by an arbitrator, rather than a court?
This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether an arbitration agreement that incorporates the American Arbitration Association’s (“AAA”) rules delegates the question of arbitrability to the arbitrators, in light of an express exclusion clause for injunctive relief, where the plaintiff sought both damages and injunctive relief. The arbitration agreement at issue in this case includes a “carve-out” provision excluding from arbitration any claims seeking injunctive relief. Rule 7(A) of the AAA’s rules states that the arbitrator has the power to rule on the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim. Petitioner Henry Schein, Inc. argues that the incorporation of the AAA rules “clearly and unmistakably” delegates all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that, because some issues are delegated to the arbitrator, the presumption of arbitrability should be read to delegate to the arbitrator the question of the application of the exclusion clause. On the other hand, Respondent Archer and White Sales, Inc. contends that the question of arbitrability should remain for the court to decide because of the explicit carve-out exemption. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for the efficiency and fairness of dispute resolution.
Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
The dispute in this case originates from 2016. Respondent Archer and White Sales, Inc. ("Archer") is a distributor of dental equipment, purportedly nationally recognized for its low prices and quality service. Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., (E.D. Tex. 2017) at 1. Archer competed directly against Petitioner Henry Schein, Inc. ("Henry Schein"), the country’s largest distributor of dental equipment.
Appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (June 24, 2009)
Oral argument: April 27, 2010
Does the United States have the authority to sue to enjoin Texas’s recent ban on medical providers performing abortion after fetal heartbeat and prohibit the State, the State judiciary, or private citizens from enforcing it?
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the United States may sue to enjoin S.B. 8, Texas’s law prohibiting medical providers from performing abortions once a heartbeat has been detected. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the Fifth Circuit stayed the enjoinment of S.B. 8, determining that, due to the enforcement scheme delegating the authority to enforce S.B. 8 to private citizens, Whole Woman’s Health could not seek to enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 8 in federal courts. In response, the United States filed suit seeking an injunction against S.B. 8. Petitioner the United States argues that it has the authority to enjoin state judicial officers from enforcing the law in federal courts to protect its sovereign interests in protecting federal constitutional rights. Respondent Texas contends that the United States has no standing to seek injunctive relief and that sovereign authority does not permit the United States to file suit in this instance. The case has significant implications for accessing abortions and for protecting other constitutional rights.
May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced?
In 2021, Texas enacted a law which, in part, prohibits physicians from performing abortions on pregnant women once the fetus has a discernable heartbeat. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson I, at 4–5. The law, referred to as Senate Bill 8 (“S.B.
The authors would like to thank Deborah Dinner and Michael Dorf for their insight and guidance in this case.
