Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
December 13, 2024 (March 31, 2025) CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp: 23-1201 24-17: Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. October 4, 2024 (March 3, 2025) City and County of San Francisco v. EPA: 23-753
The Supreme Court of the United States has so far handed down five per curiam opinions during its 2024 term, which began October 7, 2024, and will conclude October 5, 2025. [1] Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices ...
Agreement with the Court's judgment does not guarantee agreement with the reasoning expressed in its opinion. A justice is not considered in agreement if they dissented even in part. Agreement percentages are based only on the listed cases in which a justice participated and are rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one percentage point.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued the final opinions of its term on Thursday, capping a month of blockbuster decisions in cases involving key issues such as gun rights, religious liberty and abortion.
All lawyer admissions are done through recommendations of the State Bar, which then must be ratified by the Supreme Court, and attorney discipline is delegated to the State Bar Court of California (although suspensions longer than three years must be independently decided upon by the Court). California's bar is the largest in the U.S. with ...
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to place on hold a dispute over California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars even as President Donald Trump's administration considers ...
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes. Public employees cannot use labor law to sue employers ...
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.