Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Suspension of judgment is used in civil law to indicate a court's decision to nullify a civil judgment. Motions to set aside judgments entered in civil cases in the United States district courts are governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which opens with the statement, "On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final ...
The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, 12 Stat. 755 (1863), entitled An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases, was an Act of Congress that authorized the president of the United States to suspend the right of habeas corpus in response to the American Civil War and provided for the release of political prisoners.
The Suspension Clause of Article One does not expressly establish a right to the writ of habeas corpus; rather, it prevents Congress from restricting it.There has been much scholarly debate over whether the Clause positively establishes a right under the federal constitution, merely exists to prevent Congress from prohibiting state courts from granting the writ, or protects a pre-existing ...
In law, a motion to set aside judgment is an application to overturn or set aside a court's judgment, verdict or other final ruling in a case. [1] [2] Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the result of a case. Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has ...
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination in sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, creed, and national origin. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 specifies that recipients of federal funds must comply with civil rights laws in all areas, not just in the particular program or activity that received federal funding.
U.S. Const., Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863 Ex parte Milligan , 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that the use of military tribunals to try civilians when civil courts are operating is unconstitutional.
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of prison regulations. The court ruled that it was not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to deprive an inmate of attending a religious service for "legitimate penological interests."
Katzenbach (1966), the Supreme Court held that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a constitutional method to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. A few months later, on the thirteenth day of June, the Supreme Court held that section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was constitutional in the case of Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966).