When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. DeVillier v. Texas - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devillier_v._Texas

    DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [1] [2] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence. Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.

  3. List of United States Supreme Court cases involving standing

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Held that a New York resident (whose state had women's suffrage) lacked any particularized standing to challenge alleged state-level of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was a landmark case, prior to this, private citizens were permitted to litigate public rights. 9–0 Frothingham v. Mellon: 1923

  4. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center...

    Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to canvass signatures for a petition against United ...

  5. Direct-action lawsuit - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-action_lawsuit

    One example can be a customer suing a company to repeal an action deemed an infringement on the rights of the customer as a citizen and thus a subject to federal or state law. The largest direct-action lawsuit in history ($333 million) was the subject matter of the motion picture Erin Brockovich .

  6. Burnett v. National Association of Realtors - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National...

    On March 15, 2024, the National Association of Realtors announced that it would settle the lawsuit rather than appeal. The group agreed to change how commissions are paid and to pay back $418 million over four years. [16] The judge presiding over the case granted preliminary approval to the settlement on April 23, 2024. [17]

  7. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey...

    Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

  8. Companies to pay $36M in settlement over water project - AOL

    www.aol.com/companies-pay-36m-settlement-over...

    Apr. 9—SANTA FE — Two companies involved in the construction of the Buckman Direct Diversion Water Treatment Project will pay $36 million as part of a settlement agreement with the Buckman ...

  9. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc...

    Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: 697 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 569 U.S. 1017 (2013).: Holding; Judgment AFFIRMED. Static Control's alleged injuries—lost sales and damage to its business reputation—fall within the zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act, and Static Control sufficiently alleged that its injuries were proximately caused by Lexmark's ...