Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In every state, a borrower can exercise the right of redemption ahead of the foreclosure proceedings. The reality, however, is that the right of redemption is rarely exercised.
Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1 (2023), [note 1] is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondents argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters.
The right of redemption, in the law of real property, is the right of a debtor whose real property has been foreclosed upon and sold to reclaim that property if they are able to come up with the money to repay the amount of the debt. [1] About half of all U.S. states have a statutory provision that allows such a reclamation of property. [2]
Pursuant to common law tradition, the courts of Michigan have developed a large body of case law through the decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals. The decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are published in the Michigan Reports and Michigan Appeals Reports, respectively. [6]
This category contains articles regarding case law decided by the courts of Alabama. Pages in category "Alabama state case law" The following 4 pages are in this category, out of 4 total.
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons when sued for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Hamilton was charged in an Alabama court with breaking and entering a dwelling at night with intent to ravish, and had pleaded not guilty. He had then been convicted and sentenced to death.
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), was a court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5–4 decision that ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same were unconstitutional.