Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. was a case arising from a divorce petition filed by a same-sex couple in Texas. They had been married in Massachusetts. A Texas Family Court granted the petition, holding that Texas's Proposition 2, which prohibited the court from recognizing a same-sex marriage, violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
In the legal system in the United States, In re is used to indicate that a judicial proceeding may not have formally designated adverse parties or is otherwise uncontested. In re is an alternative to the more typical adversarial form of case designation, which names each case as "Plaintiff v. (versus) Defendant", as in Roe v. Wade or Miranda v ...
Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving substantive due process in the context of ...
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (2002), is a per curiam decision by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in which it reviewed restrictions that were placed upon a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on May 17, 2002.
In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (Cal. 2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California ...
In re A.C. is commonly lauded as a victory for women's rights, but it did not grant absolute autonomy of a woman against procedures ordered by the state. [4] Instead, it asserted that in "virtually all cases," a patient's desires must be adhered to if they are deemed competent.
Two U.S. Capitol Police officers alleged that Trump was responsible for physical and emotional injuries they suffered during the January 6 attack, later amended to add violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights [25] August 1, 2023: United States v. Donald J. Trump: U.S. District Court for the District of ...
On March 13, 2020, the D.C. Court of Appeals granted an appeal for an en banc hearing and vacated the February 28, 2020 decision. [20] The en banc hearing occurred on April 28, 2020. [ 21 ] [ 22 ] On August 7, 2020, the full nine judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 7–2 that the House of ...