Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Article III courts (also called Article III tribunals) are the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts of the United States established by Congress, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals, the 91 United States district courts (including the districts of D.C. and Puerto Rico, but excluding the territorial district courts of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the ...
Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent ...
Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by ...
The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime. The case stemmed from a lawsuit ...
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) Set the standard for what parties must establish in evidence to be granted summary judgement in federal civil cases and how courts should evaluate those motions. Since such motions are extremely common, Anderson has become the most-cited Supreme Court case. Daubert v.
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 593 F.2d 907 (10th Cir. 1976): Abstention to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts; reversed by the Supreme Court. Thompson v. Johnson County Community College, 108 F. 3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997): Worker privacy in bathrooms or changing rooms. United States v.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as ...
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) - When does state or federal law create rights protected by due process? Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) - What level of procedural due process is required? Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) – Does an adjudicating agency's termination of an action due to its own failure to comply with the law deny due process to the ...