Bench and counsel debated whether the statute leaves the substance and scope of a prevailing-wage "survey" to local boards or requires a defined minimum method; respondent counsel argued factual disputes remain on whether the district conducted a compliant survey.

During argument lawyers debated whether the statutory text of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §41.005 precludes exemplary damages when the harm stems from a third‑party criminal actor and how that rule applies at the pleading stage.

A judge asked whether, if the court finds the trial court misread the guarantee, further factual proceedings are necessary or whether the appellate court can resolve the interpretive question as a matter of law; counsel for Paul said no remand is needed if the guarantee is unambiguous.

Atlantic Richfield argued the Section 6 waiver in the environmental declaration expressly bars Myovi's cost‑recovery claim and that general contract‑interpretation principles require enforcement of that waiver. The judge questioned whether exceptions or related provisions alter that reading.

♦️ Meet the Barbara Huber Fellow: Introducing Paolo Sandro ♦️   “THE OPENNESS AND KINDNESS OF EVERYONE I'VE MET HAVE MADE IT EASY TO FEEL COMFORTABLE AND CONNECT WITH OTHERS"   💼 How did you become a ...

In oral argument, the prosecutor told the Court of Appeals that a court-rule interpretation may extend coverage of early-disposition issues through sentencing, while noting there is little Washington case law applying the RCW early-disposition statute to that period.

An appellate panel heard competing legal theories over whether Washington’s receiving-unlawful-compensation statute covers non-monetary benefits such as sexual favors and whether 'transaction' encompasses assisting with child-visitation; counsel disputed precedent and statutory context and the court recessed with no immediate decision.

The Supreme Court of Texas heard consolidated argument on whether a law (referred to in argument as "House bill 26 23") that enables beach closures for spaceflight activity is a permissible exercise of the state's police power or an unconstitutional restriction of the public's easement under Article I, Section 33 of the Texas Constitution. Petitioners and the state defended the statute; respondents said it effectively grants private actors (SpaceX) exclusive use of public beaches.

At a March 4 oral argument, counsel for both sides asked Division 2 to resolve whether multiple supply agreements place venue in a Tacoma district court or in Pierce County Superior Court; the court took the matter under advisement.

An Appeals Court panel considered whether seven words in Holliston’s zoning use table — “wholesale office or showroom, including warehouse facilities” — should be read to permit standalone warehouses or treated as an included accessory use deserving deference to the planning board’s interpretation.

Legal counsel informed the Cumberland School Committee about a petition by Warwick Public Schools (case referenced as 25‑074A) contesting how CTE payments are calculated; the matter requires statutory interpretation at the Rhode Island Department of Education and could yield statewide implementation changes.

In oral argument in Case No. 167608, counsel for the Department of Treasury argued that Michigan's Income Tax Act and insurance code require individual premiums and retaliatory filings by each insurance company, while counsel for Nationwide contended the statutory definitions and legislative history permit unitary-business-group combined filings.  

Court examines elements of theft law in rental vehicle cases versus personal vehicles.

Lawyers debate evidence of property transmutation under prenup in Paulson trial.

Debate centers on the enforceability of an overly broad employee release agreement.

Defense claims motorized bicycles fall outside motor vehicle prohibitions during legal argument.

Supreme Court holds oral argument in significant Oklahoma case amid Justice Barrett's recusal

Vermont Supreme Court establishes reasonable regulation test for Article 16 gun rights interpretation