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 (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency ...
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]
Kyllo v. United States: 533 U.S. 27 (2001) defining 'search' under the 4th Amendment with respect to heat sensors Good News Club v. Milford Central School: 533 U.S. 98 (2001) free speech, establishment clause Saucier v. Katz: 533 U.S. 194 (2001) qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action ...
This case featured the first example of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) A section of the Treaty of Paris supersedes an otherwise valid Virginia statute under the Supremacy Clause. This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a state law. Fletcher v.
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 ...
[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]
Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 30 Ky. L.J. 360 (1942). Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 7 Mo. L. Rev. 263 (1942).
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