Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The case introduced what has since become known as the "Mt. Healthy test" into similar cases that follow the Pickering line in asserting the First Amendment rights of public employees where the employer claims other, unprotected conduct motivated the adverse action, a two-prong process that shifts the burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant ...
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
The case of Re Akoto and 7 Others is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana that challenged the legality of the Preventive Detention Act (PDA). [1] The case centered on the arrest of Baffour Akoto, the then Chief Linguist of the Asantehene, along with seven others, who were detained under the Preventive Detention Act (PDA).
The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott. [20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C ...
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United ...
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the trial court ruled against Muniz, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court decision and ordered a new trial, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear the case. [8] At issue in this case is whether the statements from Muniz were properly admissible at his trial.
Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) [1] is a United States Court of Appeals case in which Bette Midler sought remedy against Ford Motor Company for a series of commercials in the 1980s which used a Midler impersonator. The case brought into question if a unique feature, such as a voice, can distinguish someone and thus must ...