Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The term interim order refers to an order issued by a court during the pendency of the litigation.It is generally issued by the Court to ensure Status quo.The rationale for such orders to be issued by the Courts is best explained by the Latin legal maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" which, translated to English, stands for "an act of the court shall prejudice no one".
The court ordered the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services to promulgate a reasonable shelter allowance schedule. The court's final judgment required the State to operate an interim relief system because of the inadequacy of the shelter allowance "until such time as a lawful shelter allowance is implemented."
The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, [2] holding that under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1291) such an appeal would be permitted only if:
An interlocutory injunction is a court order to compel or prevent a party from doing certain acts pending the final determination of the case. It is an order made at an interim stage during the trial, and is usually issued to maintain the status quo until judgment can be made. [1]
A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.
While it is not advisable to obtain such an order on purely strategic grounds, [13] asset freezing has a persuasive effect on settlement negotiations. [14] While a claimant obtaining an order can expect to face subsequent opposition in court from the defendant, the freezing order is generally considered to be the beginning of the end for the defendant as they will be unable to defend ...
Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent ...
Quia timet (Latin for 'because he fears'), is a common law injunction to restrain wrongful acts which are threatened or imminent but have not yet commenced. The 1884 English legal case of Fletcher v. Bealey [28 Ch.D. 688 at p. 698] stated the necessary conditions for the equity courts to grant an injunction in such cases: proof of imminent danger; proof that the threatened injury will be ...