Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet.
Smith v. Pilots Union, 296 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2002): Six-month period of limitations applies to Smith's suit against the Union whether or not he was a supervisor. McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004): Original party to the decision in Roe v. Wade lacked standing to have the case re-opened after 30 years. Horvath v.
The Tenth Circuit was created in 1929 by subdividing the existing Eighth Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit was created in 1981 by subdividing the existing Fifth Circuit. The Federal Circuit was created in 1982 by the merger of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims.
In sociology and especially the sociological study of religion, plausibility structures are the sociocultural contexts for systems of meaning within which these meanings make sense, or are made plausible. Beliefs and meanings held by individuals and groups are supported by, and embedded in, sociocultural institutions and processes.
The Fifth Circuit gained appellate jurisdiction over the United States District Court for the Canal Zone. On October 1, 1981, under Pub. L. 96–452, the Fifth Circuit was split: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida were moved to the new Eleventh Circuit. On March 31, 1982, the Fifth Circuit lost jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone, which was ...
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated late Thursday a nationwide injunction that had been issued this month by a federal judge in Texas who had concluded the Corporate ...
Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1) should seek judicial review in district court, not the Federal Circuit, regardless whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits.