Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This question remains unresolved, but the Supreme Court has held private citizens to be liable for state action when they conspire with government officials to deprive people of their rights. The 1989 case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County was decided on the basis of the state action doctrine. Social workers separated a young son Joshua from his ...
It applies to the state when it exercises legislative authority in creating a regulation with anticompetitive effects, and to private actors when they act at the direction of the state after it has done so. The doctrine is named for the Supreme Court of the United States case in which it was initially developed, Parker v. Brown. [1]
Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of United States antitrust law. It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act. The case was an appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges enjoining the enforcement, against the appellee, of a ...
Again, there would be a conflict of interest if either state's court system tried the case. Instead, the federal court system provides a neutral forum for the case. Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over cases between states.
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the judgment, and ...
Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), the United States Supreme Court applied the act of state doctrine even where the state action likely violated international law. The case arose when Cuba nationalized its sugar industry, taking control of sugar refineries and other companies in the wake of the Cuban revolution.
When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, so the story goes, President Andrew Jackson responded by declaring that "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has ...
United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extensively refined the abstention doctrine to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.