Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[1] [2] For courts like the United States Courts of Appeals in which each case is heard by a three-judge panel instead of the entire court, en banc review is usually used for only unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is an especially significant issue at stake. [3]
A ruling of nonjusticiability, in the end, prevents the issue that brought the case before the court from being resolved in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine, the issue presented before the court is either so specific that the Constitution gives sole power to one of the political branches, or the issue ...
Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 9 US 61 (1809) is an early US corporate law case decided by the US Supreme Court.It held that corporations have the capacity to sue in federal court on grounds of diversity under article three, section two of the United States Constitution. [1]
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. 799 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about the statute of limitations for judicial review of federal agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal question under review was whether a challenge to the validity of a rule must be ...
The Supreme Court remanded Miller's case back to the Fifth Circuit. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. dissented, identifying that a similar case, Burrows v. Superior Court, [5] had been decided in the California Supreme Court that ruled that bank records were protected under the Fourth Amendment, in a manner consistent with California Bankers Ass'n v.
Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).The doctrine holds that "the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them."
Case history; Prior: Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Gallagher, 43 F.3d 631 (11th Cir. 1995): Holding; The court said states could manage national banks [2] when “doing so does not prevent or significantly interfere with the national bank’s exercise of its powers" which is called conflict preemption.
Judicial disqualification laws existed in Roman law and early Jewish law, which disqualified judges from serving on cases of family, friends or enemies. [1]Civil law countries still have significant disqualification privileges, whereas common law countries, such as England, went in a different direction where recusal was required less often. [1]