Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court of Appeals ruled (2‑1) that no grounds for mistrial existed. Olson argued a dozen cases before the Supreme Court prior to becoming Solicitor General. [9] In one case, he argued against federal sentencing guidelines, and, in a case in New York state he defended a member of the press who had first leaked the Anita Hill story. [5]
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S. [1]
David Cole of Georgetown Law argued that, as a way of trying to rehabilitate the court's image after Bush v. Gore, the Court became more likely to reach a liberal decision in the four years after Bush v. Gore than it had been before the case, and that the conservative justices were more likely to join the liberals rather than the other way ...
Former President Donald Trump continues to make false claims about the New York civil fraud case he lost – including a wildly inaccurate declaration on Tuesday that an appeals court previously ...
People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et al. Court: Sandiganbayan: Full case name: People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Tiu Hay Sy Ang, Edward S. Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, John Doe also known as Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe also known as Delia Rajas, John Does and Jane Does
Presidential immunity is the concept that a sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. [a] Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute. [1] [2] The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v.
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel , [ note 1 ] 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines , via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention. [1]