Each of these cases is significant enough to merit its own post, but since they came down within a week of each other, we’re discussing both of them here. They are: Gahl v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. ___ N.W.2d ___, 2023 Wisc. LEXIS 137 (Wis. May 2, 2023), and M.T. v. Walmart Stores, Inc., ___ P.3d ___, 2023 WL 3135662 (Kan. App. April 28, 2023).
Continue Reading Two New Appellate COVID-Related Developments
About two months ago, we marveled at the notion that challenges to facially neutral state and local government vaccine requirements were still percolating through the legal system. We probably should not have been surprised by the persistence of frivolous litigation. After all, our day job entails defending litigations that can last years longer than they
If we had forgotten that there continue to be abundant U.S. cases of COVID-19, then there was plenty around us to remind us. Public mask usage seems to have increased. We heard how the “tripledemic” of viruses had made hospital beds scarce. We have had colleagues out of commission instead of completing our assignments. The
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” TwIqbal requires a complaint contain sufficient facts to make the claim for relief “plausible on its face.”
We’re happy to report on a couple of favorable decisions involving some of the COVID-19-related issues that the Blog has been covering. We have one each on ivermectin injunctions, Shoemaker v. UPMC, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 WL 4372772 (Pa. Super. Sept. 22, 2022), and vaccine mandates, Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, 2022 WL 4377515 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2022).
Last year we recounted a decision that denied a preliminary injunction to selfish New Mexicans who think that they have a right to endanger others by refusing to be vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. Specifically the court denied relief to a registered nurse who claimed that she has a right to treat
Last term the newly empowered conservative majority on the Supreme Court demonstrated to all that precedent is not so precedential, even when it had stood for nearly fifty years. They very nearly did it again, but just missed, targeting precedent on religious exemptions and vaccine mandates that has been around for more than twice as long.
Continue Reading Vaccine Mandates and Religion at the Supreme Court
As we mentioned in last year’s comprehensive “Survival of the Vaxxest” blogpost on the constitutionality (for over a century) of governmental vaccine mandates, there is no appellate precedent requiring any sort of religious exemption to such mandates. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to infect everyone else.
While some jurisdictions allow exceptions
Using its increasingly notorious “shadow docket,” the United States Supreme Court recently stayed operation of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) had imposed on large (more than 100 employees) employers nationwide. See National Federation of Independent Businesses v. OSHA, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2022 WL 120952