{"id":7254,"date":"2015-04-16T14:40:42","date_gmt":"2015-04-16T20:40:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=7254"},"modified":"2015-04-16T22:09:10","modified_gmt":"2015-04-17T04:09:10","slug":"oral-argument-of-the-week-shinnecock-indian-nation-v-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=7254","title":{"rendered":"Oral argument of the week:  Shinnecock Indian Nation v. U.S."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I find the concept of &#8220;judicial takings&#8221; and patent law to be pretty interesting. \u00a0I posted about this previously [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=4757\">here<\/a>]. \u00a0The Federal Circuit recently decided <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Shinnecock Indian Nation v. U.S.<\/span> which is tangentially related to judicial takings, although not in the realm of patent law.  During the oral argument, the Supreme Court&#8217;s plurality opinion from\u00a0<em><strong>Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection<\/strong><\/em><span>, <\/span><a title=\"United States Reports\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_Reports\">560 U.S. ___<\/a><span> (2010) is discussed &#8212; although that opinion is ultimately not mentioned in the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Shinnecock<\/span> decision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the oral argument [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2014-5015.mp3\">here<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>The opinion is available [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/14-5015.Opinion.4-3-2015.1.PDF\">here<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I find the concept of &#8220;judicial takings&#8221; and patent law to be pretty interesting. \u00a0I posted about this previously [here]. \u00a0The Federal Circuit recently decided Shinnecock Indian Nation v. U.S. which is tangentially related to judicial takings, although not in the realm of patent law. During the oral argument, the Supreme Court&#8217;s plurality opinion from\u00a0Stop [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7254"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7254"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7254\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7260,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7254\/revisions\/7260"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}