Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Agents of the federal or state government may be permitted by the court to intervene when a party to a case relies on a federal or state statute or executive order, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, for its claim or defense. In both intervention of right and permissive intervention, the applicant must make a timely application to be heard.
The Court considered another case, Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al., though in December 2020 Sidney Powell filed an emergency petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus for intervention in the case. The petition was denied without comment on March 1, 2021, ending the matter.
Gideon appeared in court alone, as he was too poor to afford to hire a defense lawyer. The following conversation took place between Gideon and the judge: [2] The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel to ...
The stakes are high because if the court rejects Trump's request, the case would return to Washington-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, with the possibility of a trial going ahead before ...
Ireland has joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, the International Court of Justice announced Tuesday morning.. In a brief press statement, the ICJ said that Ireland had on Monday ...
The state court's decision was a setback for Trump, who now must pin his hopes of freezing the case at the nation's top judicial body, where his lawyers have made a similar emergency bid to avoid ...
Harris (Harris I), [21] which the U.S. Supreme Court had requested on December 4 following arguments in the case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. [22] Because of the extraordinary nature and argued urgency of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bush v. Gore on December 12, a day after hearing oral argument.
The brief said that both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit found the Mississippi law unconstitutional by properly applying precedent in a manner that did not conflict with other courts' decisions, [72] and argued that there was therefore nothing about the case that "warrants this Court's intervention". [73]