Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The punitive damages were later significantly reduced by a judge on appeal, though this fact is not as widely known as the jury's initial decision. Martin v. Herzog: statutory violations and duty of care. Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.: Landmark case for discussion of proximate cause and its relationship with duty. Court of Appeals of ...
Court historians and other legal scholars consider each chief justice who presides over the Supreme Court of the United States to be the head of an era of the Court. [1] These lists are sorted chronologically by chief justice and include most major cases decided by the court.
This decision initiates a nationwide de facto moratorium on executions that lasts until the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Georgia's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it adequately narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. This case and the next ...
Supreme Court issues decisions on abortion, OxyContin settlement, environmental protection and SEC fraud: A look at today's rulings Kate Murphy June 27, 2024 at 1:38 PM
The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judge's decision, prompting Medical Marijuana's appeal to the Supreme Court. The justices are expected to rule in the case by the ...
Court filings show that, to satisfy the outstanding jury verdict, the Kromphardts in July sent sheriff's deputies to take legal possession of the clinic's potential causes of action against MMIC ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Holding; The Federal Tort Claims Act’s exception to waiver of sovereign immunity for claims “arising in a foreign country,” bars claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred.
Gorsuch wrote that the lower courts' decision is consistent with established antitrust principles, and thus the Court upheld the ruling, but did not attempt to make any judgment on the aspect related to whether student athletes should receive further pay as this was beyond the remit of the court. [12]