Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The following conversation took place between Gideon and the judge: [2] The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel to represent a defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense.
Such an action is permitted by a section of the United States Code [23] that gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from the District Court level in certain antitrust cases initiated by the federal government, if "the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal ...
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where a majority ruled that sodomy laws had "ancient roots... homosexual conduct has been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization". [18] In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, overturning Doe v.
For cases brought to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the chief justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there. [220] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa (1945). [221]
The court reargued the case at the behest of Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who used reargument as a stalling tactic, to allow the court to gather a consensus around a Brown opinion that would outlaw segregation. The justices in support of desegregation spent much effort convincing those who initially intended to dissent to join a ...
Trump ultimately would like the Supreme Court to hear his case and overturn the appeals court decision, but before the justices can reach that issue they have to decide whether to put the lower ...
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law. First, the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution applies to criminal laws that have at least one of four effects: 1st.