Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A background article written by CNN's legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic who details the decision-making process leading to the landmark court decision in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on November 13, 2020. Retrieved on November 24, 2020.
In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials — Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives v. United States Department of Justice : Argued: January 3, 2020: Decided: March 10, 2020: Citation: 19-1328; No. 19-5288 ...
In the legal system in the United States, In re is used to indicate that a judicial proceeding may not have formally designated adverse parties or is otherwise uncontested. In re is an alternative to the more typical adversarial form of case designation, which names each case as "Plaintiff v. (versus) Defendant", as in Roe v. Wade or Miranda v.
In re: Don McGahn (also: Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II ; U.S. House Judiciary Committee v. Donald F. McGahn ) is a U.S. constitutional case lawsuit (1:19-cv-02379) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the House Judiciary Committee to compel the ...
November 20, 2020: Michigan Welfare Rights Org. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: 1:20-cv-03388 Ongoing Black voters in the Detroit area have accused the Trump campaign of attempting to disenfranchise them. [19] [20] [21] February 16, 2021: Bennie G. Thompson v.
In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), [1] is a civil action that came before the Delaware Court of Chancery. It is an important case in United States corporate law and discusses a director's duty of care in the oversight context.
In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (Cal. 2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California ...
In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002), is a case in which the Kansas Supreme Court voided the marriage of a man and a trans woman, holding that the latter was considered male under Kansas law, and thus the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage precluded the legal validity of the marriage.