Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the legal system in the United States, In re is used to indicate that a judicial proceeding may not have formally designated adverse parties or is otherwise uncontested. In re is an alternative to the more typical adversarial form of case designation, which names each case as "Plaintiff v. (versus) Defendant", as in Roe v. Wade or Miranda v.
In law, in rem jurisdiction (Law Latin for "power about or against 'the thing'" [1]) is a legal term referring to the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile defendants as well as to adult defendants. [1]
In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 is a multidistrict litigation (MDL) lawsuit that seeks redress for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and their families. The suit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York .
Legal proceeding is an activity that seeks to invoke the power of a tribunal in order to enforce a law. Although the term may be defined more broadly or more narrowly as circumstances require, it has been noted that "[t]he term legal proceedings includes proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority, and an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal". [1]
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged." [1]: 17 It established this burden in all cases in all states (constitutional case).
The court filing in Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump also charges that the administration's actions "have had and will continue to have a catastrophic effect on the humanitarian missions ...
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that the use of military tribunals to try civilians when civil courts are operating is unconstitutional.