Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [a] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."
The question presented, which has divided the courts of appeals, is whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under Rule 60(b). October 4, 2024: January 14, 2025 Williams v. Washington: 23-191
In my judgment, therefore, the plea of waiver fails. There remains the so-called question of estoppel. This, in my judgment, is a misnomer and the present case does not raise the controversial issue of the Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [14] decision. This is not a case of a representation made after contractual ...
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. [1]
In July 2014, the plaintiff filed for a motion of summary judgment.However, on October 30, 2014, the court denied the motion. [9] Judge John A. Kronstadt, after reviewing competing musicologist reports, found "substantial similarity [between "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give It Up"] to present a genuine issue of material fact", and that the "signature phrases, hooks, bass lines, keyboard chords ...
As was observed by Lindley L.J. in Swaine v Wilson, “No doubt if the real object of this society were unduly to fetter trade its rules might all be tainted by the vice of the object, and none of the rules might be enforceable.” In the present case there is no evidence to shew how the rules are in fact used, even if such evidence would be ...
On February 9, 2022, Smith was one of two judges who declined to rule on a request to stay a preliminary injunction against Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees. [18] Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from that ruling, arguing that the government was entitled to an immediate stay while it appealed.