joeross / Joe Ross

Joe Ross is a geek, gamer, musician and writer who married a scientist.

There are twelve people in joeross’s collective.

Huffduffed (514)

  1. December 7, 2021 PA Supreme Court Argument

    17 EAP 2021 - Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Pownall, R.
    34 - 45 MAP 2021 - Povacz, M. and Randall, C., et al. v. PUC and PECO 52 MAP 2021 - Kneebone, R. v. Lutz, P., et al., Aplts. 6 EAP 2021 - Commonwealth v. Edwards, D., Aplt.

    Recording during this oral argument is prohibited by the operating procedures of this Court and the Rules of Judicial Administration. See Sections 9.A.2 and 9.A.3 of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Supreme Court; see also Rule 1910 of the Rules of Judicial Administration, 201 Pa. Code §1910. Violation of this directive may result in the imposition of sanctions.

    ===
    Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igB_EH_Xyb0
    Downloaded by http://huffduff-video.snarfed.org/ on Thu Oct 20 17:37:08 2022 Available for 30 days after download

    —Huffduffed by joeross

  2. Creation Supply, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina

    From https://www.linkedin.com/posts/donald-patrick-eckler-69880814_insured-insurer-law-activity-6975014919758901248-lS2W:

    Can a #insured recover consequential damage against an #insurer for a proved breach of the duty to defend where the court has already found that the insurer did not violate Illinois' Section 155 that provides for extracontractual liability?

    That is the question to be answered when the Seventh Circuit decides Creation Supply, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina.

    The oral argument is in the comments.

    The insurer refused to defend the insured in an underlying infringement suit and the insured prevailed in the declaratory judgment action and obtained a money award for the costs incurred in defending the underlying suit. The Seventh Circuit subsequently found that the conduct was not vexatious and unreasonable, but the plaintiff refiled it consequential damages claim. Or was it never sought in the first place?

    There are issues of claim splitting that have to be resolved as there were both state and federal action, but beyond the procedural question, which seemed to be going the insured's way at oral argument, was the issue whether such a recovery, which would compensate the insured for having to close down the business, is permitted under Illinois law, or the law of any state.

    download

    Tagged with oral

    —Huffduffed by joeross

  3. Watering a flower Haruomi Hosono 1984 cassette (花に水)

    In 1984 Muji commissioned Haruomi Hosono to compose in-store background music.

    Tracks: 00:00 Talking 14:56 Growth 29:49 Muji Original BGM

    Note: A friendly commenter has noted that the third piece, Muji Original BGM, was not on the tape. However, it does feature on the "Muji BGM 1980-2000" compilation, which was also sold only in Muji shops. I have kept the last song on the upload, so that people can hear them all together.

    Art: poster by Ikko Tanaka

    ===
    Original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=34UutDrXV2Q&feature=youtu.be
    Downloaded by http://huffduff-video.snarfed.org/ on Fri May 27 07:51:26 2022 Available for 30 days after download

    Tagged with entertainment

    —Huffduffed by joeross

  4. United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. Oral Argument - April 23, 2007

    Citation 551 US 128 (2007) Granted Jan 19, 2007 Argued Apr 23, 2007 Decided Jun 11, 2007 Advocates Thomas G. Hungar Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner Owen T. Armstrong Jr. argued the cause for the respondent Jay D. Geck on behalf of Washington, et al., as amici curiae, supporting the respondent Facts of the case

    Atlantic Research Corp. (Atlantic) built rocket motors for the United States government at an Arkansas facility. When residue from burnt rocket fuel contaminated the site, Atlantic voluntarily cleaned up the contamination and later sought cost recovery from the government under Section 107(a) and Section 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Some Courts of Appeals had interpreted Section 107(a) as implicitly allowing a party responsible for contamination to compel other partly-responsible parties to contribute to the clean-up. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 added Section 113(f), which makes explicit the right to sue for contribution.

    While Atlantic was negotiating with the government, the Supreme Court ruled in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. that a party cannot bring a Section 113(f) claim for contribution unless it is already the subject of a Section 107(a) contamination action. Atlantic filed a new claim for contribution under Section 107(a), but a district court denied the claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had previously ruled that a liable party must use Section 113(f), not Section 107(a), to file a contribution claim. Atlantic argued that failure to meet the requirements of Section 113(f) did not foreclose the implied Section 107(a) right to sue other partly-responsible parties for contribution. Question

    Can a party that is potentially responsible for the cost of cleaning up contaminated property under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) bring an action against another potentially responsible party under Section 107(a), even if the party does not satisfy the requirements for bringing an action for contribution under Section 113(f) of CERCLA?

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-562

    download

    Tagged with scotus

    —Huffduffed by joeross

  5. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. Oral Argument - October 06, 2004

    Facts of the case

    Texas prodded Aviall Services to clean up contaminated property bought from Cooper Industries. Aviall sued in federal district court to force Cooper to pay some of the clean up costs. Aviall claimed it could sue Cooper under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Cooper admitted to being a potentially responsible party (PRP), but claimed it was not liable because Aviall was never sued to clean up the land and had no federal requirement to do so. The district court and a panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Aviall. The entire appellate court reversed and ruled CERCLA does not require a PRP to first be sued before seeking clean up funds from other PRPs. Question

    Does the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) require that a party liable for pollution be sued under CERCLA before seeking clean up funds from other liable parties?

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/02-1192

    download

    Tagged with scotus

    —Huffduffed by joeross

  6. Jimmy Eat World | Phoenix Sessions: Clarity (Live)

    To start 2021, Jimmy Eat World put together the 'Phoenix Sessions,' a global stream performance series. Performing three "chapters" from their career - each album in full on a whole new level. This is Chapter III: Clarity. Download or stream the audio here: https://JimmyEatWorld.lnk.to/ClarityPhoenixSessions

    Connect with Jimmy Eat World: http://jimmyeatworld.com http://twitter.com/jimmyeatworld http://facebook.com/jimmyeatworld https://www.instagram.com/jimmyeatworld/

    #jimmyeatworld #phoenixsessions #clarity

    ===
    Original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ96wkcGOpo&feature=youtu.be
    Downloaded by http://huffduff-video.snarfed.org/ on Sat Jan 8 03:36:22 2022 Available for 30 days after download

    —Huffduffed by joeross

Page 1 of 52Older