Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, ex parte (/ ɛ k s ˈ p ɑːr t eɪ,-iː /) is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction [1] of" (name of party/faction, often omitted), thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present.
ex parte: from [for] one party A decision reached, or case brought, by or for one party without the other party being present. ex post: from after Based on knowledge of the past. ex post facto: from a thing done afterward Commonly said as "after the fact." ex post facto law
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts for injunctions against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's sovereign immunity, when the State acted contrary to any federal law or contrary to the Constitution. [1]
The notable exceptions to the usual characteristics for a per curiam decision are the cases of New York Times Co. v. United States, Bush v. Gore, and Trump v. Anderson. Although they were per curiam, [5] each had multiple concurrences and dissents. [6] [7] Examples include: Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952 ...
Law schools in this list are categorized by whether they are currently active or closed; within each section they are listed in alphabetical order by state, then name. Most of these law schools grant the Juris Doctor degree, commonly abbreviated JD, which is the typical first professional degree in law in the United States.
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate.
Case history; Prior: Motion to dismiss denied, 801 F. Supp. 655 (S.D. Fla. 1992); reversed, 11 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1994); cert. granted, 513 U.S. 1125 (1995).: Holding; Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to abrogate the sovereign immunity afforded to states under the 11th Amendment; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows parties to seek relief against state ...
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. [1]