Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The court referred to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Norris v. Ireland and of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend v. Alberta, finding that heterosexist discrimination causes psychological harm to gays and lesbians and affects their dignity and self-esteem. It also observed that the criminalisation of sodomy legitimises ...
Agents of the federal or state government may be permitted by the court to intervene when a party to a case relies on a federal or state statute or executive order, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, for its claim or defense. In both intervention of right and permissive intervention, the applicant must make a timely application to be heard.
Duty to warn is embedded in the historical context of two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. [15] [page needed] [16] The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient ...
The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, Cruzan was argued on December 6, 1989, and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri , finding it was acceptable to require " clear and convincing evidence " of a patient ...
Concern about the Supreme Court's considering three abortion-related cases in the 2021–22 term led to the near record number of amici curiae briefs filed for Dobbs before the case was argued on December 1, 2021. [78] U.S. states that have trigger laws that restricted abortions after Roe was overturned
Oliver is one of a handful of attorneys who specialize in representing whistleblowers who bring lawsuits under a Civil War-era law that encourages people to report fraud against the government. These so-called qui tam cases are filed under seal, with the hope that the Justice Department will investigate and then join in.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 [1] permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332, [2] provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.
[fn 6] [50] The Supreme Court consolidated the other three cases into Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Chad Everet Brackeen, et al., allotting one hour for oral argument. All four cases dealt with the same basic subject matter, but from the perspective of each individual appellant , and it is a more efficient use of the Court's ...