Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This statute provides that lower federal courts may also hear cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, [1]: 19–20 with the exception of disputes between two or more states. When a case is between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction, and no lower court may hear such cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States.It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that turn on questions of U.S. constitutional or federal law.
The opposite situation is concurrent jurisdiction (or non-exclusive jurisdiction) in which more than one court may take jurisdiction over the case. Exclusive jurisdiction is typically defined in terms of subject matter. For example, 28 U.S.C. § 1334 gives the United States district courts exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising in ...
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to enforce in Texas federal guidance requiring hospitals to perform abortions if needed to stabilize ...
Some scholars were less certain, predicting that at least some of the conservative justices might be open to narrowing the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suit against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the federal Treasury.
Article III courts (also called Article III tribunals) are the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts of the United States established by Congress, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals, the 91 United States district courts (including the districts of D.C. and Puerto Rico, but excluding the territorial district courts of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the ...
Calad was a Supreme Court of the United States appeal and ruling, where CIGNA Healthcare, Inc. challenged a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling in favor of Mrs. Ruby Calad, who was insured under her husband's employer's self-funded medical insurance plan in the State of Texas. This was a Landmark Supreme Court Case.