Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An advisory opinion of a court or other government authority, such as an election commission, is a decision or opinion of the body but which is non-binding in law and does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but which merely legally advises on its opinion as to the constitutionality or interpretation of a law.
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
As an initial question in every case before any federal court, the dispute must fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts as set out in Article III, § 2. Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions. That is, a dispute before a federal court must involve an real question of fact or law, and must be neither ...
The Supreme Court's decision last month to overturn a decades-old decision that gave regulators more leeway to set rules will harm innovation and threaten U.S. economic vitality, according to ...
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. [1] The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form.
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."
The Lochner era was a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies". [1]
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has written roughly 100 opinions in more than three years on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.