Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.Written by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, the decision of the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need show only that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case.
A bench memorandum (pl. bench memoranda) (also known as a bench memo) is a short and neutral memorandum that summarizes the facts, issues, and arguments of a court case. Bench memos are used by the judge as a reference during preparation for trial, the hearing of lawyers' arguments, and the drafting of a decision and also to give the judge an ...
Toggle Background of the case subsection. 1.1 FBI investigation and warrantless search. ... Wikipedia talk: WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/sample outline.
The text claim would have barred anyone from copying the text of a case from a West case law reporter, since the copied text would include West enhancements to which West claimed copyright. In a 1986 pre- Feist case, West's citation copyright claim was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a preliminary injunction case ...
To cause the template to automatically display an image of the coat of arms of a court or of the court building, enter the name of the court as shown at {{Infobox court case/images}}. image An image to represent the court, such as a coat of arms or a photograph of a courthouse.
Australian courts and tribunals have now adopted a neutral citation standard for case law. The format provides a naming system that does not depend on the publication of the case in a law report. Most cases are now published on AustLII using neutral citations. [10] The standard format looks like this:
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit ...