Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to ...
The Arlene's Flowers lawsuit was a group of merged civil suits brought against Arlene's Flowers of Richland, Washington, US, by a couple whose longtime florist declined service of their same-sex wedding, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt: 21-984: 2023-2-22 Respondent Hewitt was not an executive exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay guarantee; daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis only if the conditions set out in 29 CFR §541.604(b) are met. Bartenwerfer v. Buckley: 21-908: 2023-2-22
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 ...
The trial ended in 1979 with the ruling that the conditions of imprisonment within the TDC prison system constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States Constitution, [2] with the original report issued in 1980, a 118-page decision by Judge William Justice (Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1295). [3]
Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ("Horne I"); 576 U.S. 351 (2015) ("Horne II"), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ECJ Advocate-General gives his opinion on the case [5] The opinion serves as advice to the ECJ 3 September 2014: ECJ answers the questions referred for a preliminary ruling [6] The answers are binding on the requesting court, and constitute a "factual precedent" for other EU courts. [8] Case is retracted or the court of appeal of Brussels rules [6]
The criteria for determining what constitutes a "substantial right" is somewhat vague, however, being that it varies from case to case, each presenting a slightly different interpretation of which rights are essential, or significant enough to warrant this sort of legal protection.