Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"Knocking on the Schoolhouse Door" 8 La Raza Law Journal 166 (1995), Christopher Arriola. A look at one town involved in the lawsuit, El Modena, and an examination of the appellate briefs used in the case. Chicano Education in the Era of Segregation UCI Press, (1992) Gilbert Gonzalez. A sociological history of Mexican School Segregation in the ...
Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages (the law of compensation), restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been ...
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution.
This case was the beginning of the plenary power legal doctrine that has been used in Indian case law to limit tribal sovereignty. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) An Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and the co-operation of the United States Federal government. United States v.
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, docket no. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
The case is illustrative of bedrock legal practices in the United States. In deciding a forfeiture case rooted in a forfeiture prohibition, the Supreme Court stated the principle: "But whether the reason [for the forfeiture] be artificial or real, it is too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of this country to now be ...
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998), is a United States corporate law and environmental law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the indirect liability of a parent corporation under CERCLA is to be determined by its control over a subsidiary's facility, rather than the relationship between the corporation and subsidiary.