Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Kominis and her co-plaintiff, Jason McAllister of California, are seeking damages in excess of $5m. Starbucks has since called the allegations “inaccurate” and “without merit”.
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
So, in Dies v British and International Mining and Finance Corporation, [16] the plaintiff bought arms for the price of 135,000 pounds, paying 100,000 pounds in advance. Though unwilling or unable to take delivery, the plaintiff succeeded in recovering the payment, notwithstanding that Stable J held that there was not a total failure of ...
A crossclaim is filed against someone who is a co-defendant or co-plaintiff to the party who originates the crossclaim. In common law, a crossclaim is a demand made in a pleading that is filed against a party which is on the "same side" of the lawsuit. [1]
Perhaps the best known case creating an implied cause of action for constitutional rights is Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack ...
In Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969), [1] Hazeltine had required an unwilling Zenith to pay a percentage of all its sales of electronic equipment in order to be granted a license under Hazeltine's patents.
Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and in the other Supreme Court decisions prior to Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989); to confirm statutory authority and provide statutory guidelines for the adjudication of disparate impact suits under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.); and
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".