Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Agents of the federal or state government may be permitted by the court to intervene when a party to a case relies on a federal or state statute or executive order, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, for its claim or defense. In both intervention of right and permissive intervention, the applicant must make a timely application to be heard.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
The Court considered another case, Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al., though in December 2020 Sidney Powell filed an emergency petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus for intervention in the case. The petition was denied without comment on March 1, 2021, ending the matter.
"The court also determined that because the parents' children were victims of a crime, the parents had a sufficiently personal stake in the litigation to establish standing to intervention," the ...
The stakes are high because if the court rejects Trump's request, the case would return to Washington-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, with the possibility of a trial going ahead before ...
The court's biggest intervention on trans issues writ large came in a surprise 6-3 ruling in 2020 written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. He concluded that federal law that bars sex ...
The brief said that both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit found the Mississippi law unconstitutional by properly applying precedent in a manner that did not conflict with other courts' decisions, [72] and argued that there was therefore nothing about the case that "warrants this Court's intervention". [73]
Duty to warn is embedded in the historical context of two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. [15] [page needed] [16] The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient ...