Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case Docket no. Question(s) presented Certiorari granted Oral argument Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra: 23-715: Whether the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not ...
Although it has not happened since 1794 in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford, [202] parties in an action at law in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction may request that a jury determine issues of fact. [203] Georgia v. Brailsford remains the only case in which the court has empaneled a jury, in this case a special jury. [204]
Multiple concurrences and dissents within a case are numbered, with joining votes numbered accordingly. Justices frequently join multiple opinions in a single case; each vote is subdivided accordingly. An asterisk ( * ) in the Court's opinion denotes that it was only a majority in part or a plurality.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Family members embrace as they attend a news conference to announce a decision in the case of the Menendez brothers, who have spent 34 years in prison for the shotgun murder of their parents, in ...
Slipper-style galoshes. There are now only two basic types of galoshes. It is commonly thought that galoshes are known in the United Kingdom as a Wellington boot, a large rubber boot, commonly worn as footwear in their own right, but this is not correct. A Wellington boot is named after the Duke of Wellington and is a separate item from a pair ...
California Gov. Gavin Newsom says a clemency decision for convicted murderers Erik and Lyle Menendez is on hold until Los Angeles' newly-elected district attorney can review the case.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]