Ads
related to: specialty courts examples of federal government decisionsstudy.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 593 F.2d 907 (10th Cir. 1976): Abstention to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts; reversed by the Supreme Court. Thompson v. Johnson County Community College, 108 F. 3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997): Worker privacy in bathrooms or changing rooms. United States v.
Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: 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 ...
With this number of original jurisdiction courts involved in making legal determinations on federal tax matters and thirteen United States courts of appeals exercising appellate jurisdiction, observers recognize and are concerned that the tax laws can be interpreted differently for like cases. As examples, Supreme Court decisions in the well ...
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) Created a new abstention doctrine, under which federal courts in a diversity jurisdiction can let state courts hear cases under certain circumstances. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) The Constitution supersedes all treaties ratified by the Senate. Gravel v.
In the United States, specialized courts, or specialty courts are courts that aim to rehabilitate generally non-violent and low-rate offenders by including specifically trained professionals pertaining to the field of specialty court. The purpose of these specialized courts is to acknowledge and handle criminal activity at the source.
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association (1992) - Ways in which Federal law preempts state law. Printz v. United States (1997) - Federal Government may not "commandeer" state executive or administrative officials. Whitman v.
Article III courts (also called Article III tribunals) are the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts of the United States established by Congress, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals, the 91 United States district courts (including the districts of D.C. and Puerto Rico, but excluding the territorial district courts of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the ...
In its first decision, the Federal Circuit incorporated as binding precedent the decisions of its predecessor courts, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. [8] Because the Court is one of national jurisdiction, panels from the court may sit anywhere in the country.