Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against the intellectually disabled. In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC) submitted a permit application seeking approval to build a group home for intellectually disabled people.
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977), was a legal case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States that stated that the Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent the burdening of a defendant to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance as defined by law in the state of New York.
This case featured the first example of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) A section of the Treaty of Paris supersedes an otherwise valid Virginia statute under the Supremacy Clause. This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a state law. Fletcher v.
The AOL.com video experience serves up the best video content from AOL and around the web, curating informative and entertaining snackable videos.
The case began in the local Cook County court, when the Village government successfully sued, under the caption Village of Skokie v. NSPA , for an injunction to bar the demonstration. On April 28, 1977, village attorney Schwartz filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County for an emergency injunction against the march to be held on May 1, 1977.
While the case related to divorce law, it also served to confirm that the balance of probabilities is the applicable standard of proof in all civil proceedings, subject to statute. Prior to Briginshaw , due to the state of the law in England at the time, Australian law regarding the onus of proof in divorce cases "was a little confused". [ 4 ]
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.