Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court announced that the Lemon test from the landmark case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) had been abandoned by the Court in later cases. Instead, the Court announced, original meaning and history govern analysis of the Establishment Clause.
"Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a leading decision when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved.
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.
Hollingsworth v. Perry (the new title of the case) was effectively dismissed, but the court did rule in United States v. Windsor. Should the latter be added as a landmark case, since SCOTUS overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 01:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Someone took care of it already.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), [1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality.
Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions is a series first aired by C-SPAN in the fall of 2015 about 12 key cases argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. A second season aired in the winter and spring of 2018, in which 12 additional cases were discussed. [1] Each episode is 90 minutes long, airs live, and examines a specific case in ...
Court upholds the unemployment insurance provisions of the Social Security Act: Bogardus v. Commissioner: 302 U.S. 34 (1937) distinction between taxable compensation and tax-exempt gifts under the Internal Revenue Code: Palko v. Connecticut: 302 U.S. 319 (1937) selective incorporation, double jeopardy: Connecticut General Life Insurance Company ...
The Court asserted that "this Court is bound by holdings, not language." [12] Therefore, from the majority's point of view, the holding of Cannon did not include the footnote. The Court also rejected the argument that Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission, a case the Court decided in 1983, dictated the outcome of Sandoval.