Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
This was a landmark case, prior to this, private citizens were permitted to litigate public rights. 9–0 Frothingham v. Mellon: 1923: Held that the generalized injury of higher taxation overall was insufficient to give a taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending. Considered the genesis of the doctrine of standing. [2] 9–0 Poe v. Ullman ...
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.
Cases dealing with civil and administrative regulatory procedures aimed at suppressing or restricting obscenity, such as film-licensing boards or zoning regulations. Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915)
These lists contain detailed tables about each term since 1999, including which justices filed the court's opinion, dissenting and concurring opinions in each case, and information about justices joining opinions. The tables conclude with term statistics and concordance data.
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) - When does state or federal law create rights protected by due process? Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) - What level of procedural due process is required? Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) – Does an adjudicating agency's termination of an action due to its own failure to comply with the law deny due process to the ...
The distinction between public and private law was first made by Roman jurist Ulpian, who argues in the Institutes (in a passage preserved by Justinian in the Digest) that "[p]ublic law is that which respects the establishment of the Roman commonwealth, private that which respects individuals' interests, some matters being of public and others of private interest."
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used ...
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d. 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972): In medical malpractices cases, informed consent is required of the patient and no expert is required for the case to be heard by a jury. Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004): Established the FSIA did not create new causes of action against foreign states.