Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions. In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court . United States courts of appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case.
Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the Supreme Court of the United States. United States Courts of Appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below.
A background article written by CNN's legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic who details the decision-making process leading to the landmark court decision in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on November 13, 2020. Retrieved on November 24, 2020.
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.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.
In 2012, the decision was appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, where the court upheld the decision that the Tsilhqotʼin did not hold title to these lands, except for limited situations. [5] The court applied a more stringent title test that examined site-specific occupation of definite tracts of land at the time of European ...
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies. Prior to the case, numerous state legislative chambers had districts containing unequal populations; for example, in the Nevada Senate , the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had ...