Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Oyez descends from the Anglo-Norman oyez, the plural imperative form of oyer, from French ouïr, "to hear"; thus oyez means "hear ye" and was used as a call for silence and attention. It was common in medieval England, [1] and France. [5] The term is still in use by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in ...
The Oyez Project is an unofficial online multimedia archive website for the Supreme Court of the United States. It was initiated by the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law and now also sponsored by Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute and Justia. The website has emphasis on the court's audio of oral arguments.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously held that tomatoes should be classified as vegetables rather than fruits for purposes of tariffs, imports and customs.
As Marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court, Gail Curley was handed a bombshell of an assignment, ... Her brief script includes “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!” — meaning “hear ye” — and concludes, “God ...
Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a statutory interpretation case in the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] Although one commentator characterizes the case's implications as meaning "[t]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment," [2] the Court majority itself made no categorical constitutional pronouncement about ...
The Supreme Court has stepped in to settle the dispute. Federal courts across the country disagree about whether the word, as it is used in a bipartisan 2018 criminal justice overhaul, indeed ...
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in ...