Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
When it did, in Southland Corp. v. Keating, [18] then-Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for a 7-2 majority that not only upheld Prima Paint but held that the law applied to arbitration clauses in contracts executed under state law as well. Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor dissented, as they would in subsequent cases where the court upheld that ...
The text claim would have barred anyone from copying the text of a case from a West case law reporter, since the copied text would include West enhancements to which West claimed copyright. In a 1986 pre- Feist case, West's citation copyright claim was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a preliminary injunction case ...
United States, 593 F.2d 907 (10th Cir. 1976): Abstention to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts; reversed by the Supreme Court. Thompson v. Johnson County Community College, 108 F. 3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997): Worker privacy in bathrooms or changing rooms. United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711 (10th. Cir. 2007 ...
Reassigned on June 16, 1891 to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit by the Judiciary Act of 1891: Reassigned on February 28, 1929 to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by 45 Stat. 1346 R. Lewis: CO: 1929–1940 Murrah: OK: 1940–1970 Doyle: CO: 1971–1984 Ebel: CO: 1988–2006 Gorsuch ...
Therefore, the law that exists at the time of the appeal might be different from the law that existed at the time of the events that are in controversy under civil or criminal law in the case at hand. A court of appeals applies the law as it exists at the time of the appeal; otherwise, it would be handing down decisions that would be instantly ...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court in 2005, stating that there was a "general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances." [4] Following this reversal, eBay took the case to the Supreme Court, where it prevailed. In the ...
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States government, when it enters into a contract with a Native American Indian tribe for services, must pay contracts in full, even if Congress has not appropriated enough money to pay all tribal contractors. [1]
The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "# Cir." = United States Court of Appeals. e.g., "3d Cir." = United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit