Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion on January 31, 2017, denying both defendants’ challenges and affirming the district court’s judgment below. [2] The defendants petitioned the US Supreme Court for certiorari, and following the Court’s decision in Sessions v.
Russell Ellis, who goes by "JollyGoodGinger," speaks to a live stream audience outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the court heard oral arguments on whether to overturn or delay a law that could ...
Watch live as the US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a bid by TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, to block a law intended to force the sale of the app by 19 January or face a ban on ...
Banister v. Davis , 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act .
United States v. Miller: 23-824: Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy. June 24, 2024: December 2, 2024 United States v. Skrmetti: 23-477
U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle hailed a ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday that upheld a law that gives popular Chinese-owned social media app TikTok until Sunday to be bought by an ...
United States v. Davis may refer to: United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on tax treatment of divorce settlements; United States v. Davis, an 11th Circuit ruling on the need for a warrant to obtain cell phone location data; United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the residual clause of the Hobbs Act
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel." [1] Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v.