When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown...

    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

  3. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island...

    Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United ...

  4. Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Union...

    American Petroleum Institute (also known as the Benzene Case), 448 U.S. 607 (1980), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] This case represented a challenge to the OSHA practice of regulating carcinogens by setting the exposure limit "at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair the viability of ...

  5. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Riverside_v...

    County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody.

  6. Goldberg v. Kelly - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly

    Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government welfare benefits can be deprived of such benefits.

  7. Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal

    Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet.

  8. International Shoe Co. v. Washington - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v...

    International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a party, particularly a corporation, may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state court if it has "minimum contacts" with that state. [1]

  9. Van Buren v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States

    Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and its definition of "exceeds authorized access" in relation to one intentionally accessing a computer system they have authorization to access.