Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A dissent in part is a dissenting opinion which disagrees selectively with one or more parts of the majority holding. In decisions that require holdings with multiple parts due to multiple legal claims or consolidated cases, judges may write an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part".
In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case may result in a majority opinion adopting a particular understanding of the law formerly advocated in dissent. As with concurring opinions, the difference in opinion between dissents and majority opinions can often illuminate the precise holding of the ...
In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case will write a majority opinion for the same rule of law formerly cited by the dissent. The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the case law, use of different principles, or a different interpretation ...
In an unsparing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court allowed a president to become a “king above the law” in its ruling that limited the scope of criminal charges against ...
The term has also been applied to those bodies who dissent from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, [1] which is the national church of Scotland. [4] In this connotation, the terms dissenter and dissenting, which had acquired a somewhat contemptuous flavor, have tended since the middle of the 18th century to be replaced by nonconformist, a term which did not originally imply secession, but ...
The rest contained questions or opinions that did not reflect a stance on the law, it added. But businesspeople and journalists have expressed fear that a broadly framed law could criminalize their day-to-day work, especially because the proposed definition of state secrets includes matters linked to economic, social and technological ...
Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [a] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. [1]