Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency to deliver ...
As Professor Alexander Bickel points out, however, Atherton Mills was "a case of quite conventional mootness, hardly apt as an illustration of judicial self-restraint in constitutional litigation". [15] Mootness, a justiciability doctrine, serves to ensure that a controversy is "live" and in need of judicial resolution. [16]
In a case challenging the legality of a law limiting who can apply for judicial vacancies, a plaintiff did not have Article III standing because he failed to show that he was "able and ready" to apply for a judicial vacancy and thus did not suffer personal, concrete, and imminent injury. 8–0 Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski: 2021
[1] [2] In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States that gag orders, viewed as form of prior restraint are presumptively unconstitutional. [2] In Nebraska Press Ass'n the Supreme Court imposed a high burden on the government in order to sustain a prior restraint against the press. [2]
United States v. Harriss: 347 U.S. 612 (1954) constitutionality of The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946: Berman v. Parker: 348 U.S. 26 (1954) eminent domain, takings United States v. International Boxing Club of New York: Antitrust: 348 U.S. 236 (1955) boxing not exempt from antitrust regulation Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States ...
Those of us involved in the justice system know that the overwhelming majority of prosecutors and judges have only one motivation: to enforce the law fairly. Numerous safeguards to ensure this are ...
The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial restraint and is intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also premised on the "delicacy" and the "finality" of judicial review of legislation for ...
Case history; Prior: United States v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 173 F. 177 (C.C.E.D. Mo. 1909): Holding; The Standard Oil Company conspired to restrain the trade and commerce in petroleum, and to monopolize the commerce in petroleum, in violation of the Sherman Act, and was split into many smaller companies.