Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, [15] meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge, both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The 2019 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 7, 2019, and concluded October 4, 2020. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
February 22, 2019, the court set the case for oral argument April 23, 2019 at 10 a.m. [11] Concurrent to New York's challenge, a separate case related to the census question was brought by the state of California and several local and city governments against Ross and the Commerce Department, challenging the question's addition as a violation ...
Accordingly, he ordered Hryniak to pay more than US$2 million in damages. The ruling marked the first successful use of summary judgment in an Ontario fraud case. [6] The Ontario Court of Appeal heard the appeal together with others, in its first consideration of the 2010 changes made to summary judgment procedures in Ontario. While concluding ...
Summary judgment: A party can seek a summary judgment on all or part of its claim. [95] The court will grant a summary judgment if the party seeking the judgment demonstrates that there is no real dispute regarding the facts. [95] The court must provide reasons for either granting or denying a summary judgment. [95]
Precythe, 587 U.S. 119 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the standards for challenging methods of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that when a convict sentenced to death challenges the State's method of execution due to claims of excessive ...
The District Court issued summary judgement for St. James on the basis that Biel's position fell into that covered by Hosanna-Tabor as ministerial and thus immune from discrimination laws. [4] Biel appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , which reversed the District Court's ruling. [ 5 ]