Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
In Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., [4] the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's remand decision in the preceding 1969 case. In its decision on remand, the district court had found an antitrust violation—participating in foreign patent pools that excluded Zenith from selling in the U.S. market—and awarded damages to ...
A crossclaim is filed against someone who is a co-defendant or co-plaintiff to the party who originates the crossclaim. In common law, a crossclaim is a demand made in a pleading that is filed against a party which is on the "same side" of the lawsuit. [1]
Kominis and her co-plaintiff, Jason McAllister of California, are seeking damages in excess of $5m. Starbucks has since called the allegations “inaccurate” and “without merit”.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), was a court case concerning employment discrimination, argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 18, 1989, and decided on June 5, 1989.
Li v. Yellow Cab Co. , 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), commonly referred to simply as Li , is a California Supreme Court case that judicially embraced comparative negligence in California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence .
Case history; Prior: United States v. Upjohn Co., 600 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir. 1979); cert. granted, 445 U.S. 925 (1980). Holding (1) District Court's test, of availability of attorney–client privilege, was objectionable as it restricted availability of privilege to those corporate officers who played “substantial role” in deciding and directing corporation's legal response; (2) where ...
Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 45-47 (1960); Simpson v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 377 U.S. 13, 16-17 (1964). [40] The particular pages of the Parke Davis opinion that the Leegin dissent cites include those in which the Parke Davis Court had found that Parke Davis had put together a horizontal combination or conspiracy among those to whom it sold ...