Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
This was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) Federal courts may review state court decisions when they rest on federal law or the federal Constitution. This decision provides for the uniform interpretation of federal law throughout the states ...
The Fairfax County Circuit Court decided the case in Hillman's favor, awarding her the FEGLI benefits. However, the decision was overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled that federal insurance programs preempt state laws, citing previous U. S. Supreme Court decisions Wissner v. Wissner and Ridgeway v. Ridgeway. [2]
Zehmer, 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) was a court case in the Supreme Court of Virginia about the enforceability of a contract based on outward appearance of the agreement. It is commonly taught in first-year contract law classes at American law schools .
The Supreme Court of Virginia is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Virginia.It primarily hears direct appeals in civil cases from the trial-level city and county circuit courts, as well as the criminal law, family law and administrative law cases that are initially appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Jenson informed Albert that once the case got to the Virginia Supreme Court, he would be released, according to court records. A staffer told Albert he would be home in 48 to 72 hours. Albert and ...
They filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to hear the case. [5] There had been a circuit split on the issue of whether Title VII protects employees from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Second Circuit in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. and the Seventh Circuit in Hively v.
The trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court agreed, [3] but the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided the case purely based on the parties' briefs without granting certiorari, [1] found the law a permissible way of carrying out the stated objectives of preserving the neighborhood character and residents' quality of life and that legal ...