Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) As an Indian tribe and the United States are separate sovereigns, both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe can prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions without invoking double jeopardy if the actions of the accused violated Federal law ...
United States Courts of Appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other ...
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits. [1]
United States (1908), the Court overruled a federal law which forbade "yellow dog contracts" (contracts that prohibited workers from joining unions). Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) involved a decision that a District of Columbia minimum wage law was unconstitutional. In 1925, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in Gitlow v.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those the Constitution specifies. The decision invalidated 23 states' Congressional term limit provisions.
Taylor v. United States: 495 U.S. 575 (1990) definition of "burglary" under certain sentence enhancement provisions of the federal criminal code Burnham v. Superior Court of California: 495 U.S. 604 (1990) physical presence as a requirement for personal jurisdiction Duro v. Reina: 495 U.S. 676 (1990) Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over ...
Among the most awaited Supreme Court decisions this term was a patent case, Bilski v. Kappos. While patent law is usually esoteric and unlikely to grab headlines, this case addressed the core ...
Stare decisis—the "doctrine that courts should generally be bound by their prior decisions"—is the bedrock of precedent and shapes our legal system. [5] When a court departs from this principle, reliable sources will often describe it as a landmark for the simple reason that it is an especially significant act. Consider the case of Janus v.