Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent. 5–4 Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation: 2007: Bond v. United States: 2011
The Oyez Project is an unofficial online multimedia archive website for the Supreme Court of the United States. It was initiated by the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law and now also sponsored by Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute and Justia. The website has emphasis on the court's audio of oral arguments.
This is a list of cases before the United States Supreme Court that the Court has agreed to hear and has not yet decided. [1] [2] [3] Future argument dates are in parentheses; arguments in these cases have been scheduled, but have not, and potentially may not, take place.
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 408 of the United States Reports: Case name Citation Date decided Laird v. Tatum: 408 U.S. 1: ...
The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in ...
Ultimately, Young instituted a federal habeas action. The court determined that the Community Protection Act was civil and, therefore, it could not violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the case turned on whether the Act was punitive "as applied" to Young. [5] 5th
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914), also known as the Shreveport Rate Case, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court expanding the power of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Justice Hughes's majority opinion stated that the federal government's power to regulate ...
Case Law After a trial court awarded damages to Commil, Cisco appealed and argued that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the standard for inducement was negligence and precluded the submission of evidence of Cisco's good-faith belief that Commil's patent was invalid.