query: in what case did the us supreme court hand down its first opinion on august the 3rd 1791

pos: History of the Supreme Court of the United States of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was "Van Staphorst v. Maryland" (1791), and its first recorded decision was "West v. Barnes" (1791). Perhaps the most controversial of the Supreme Court's early decisions was "Chisholm v. Georgia", in which it held that the federal judiciary could hear lawsuits against states. Soon thereafter, responding to the concerns of several states, Congress proposed the Eleventh Amendment, which granted states immunity from certain types of lawsuits in federal courts. The Amendment was ratified in 1795. Jay was succeeded as Chief Justice by John Rutledge, and then by Oliver

pos: West v. Barnes West v. Barnes West v. Barnes, , was the first United States Supreme Court decision and the earliest case calling for oral argument. "Van Staphorst v. Maryland" (1791) was docketed prior to "West v. Barnes" but settled before the Court heard the case: "West" was argued on August 2, 1791 and decided on August 3, 1791. "Collet v. Collet" (1791) was the first appellate case docketed with the Court but was dropped before it could be heard. Supreme Court Reporter Alexander Dallas did not publish the justices' full opinions in "West v. Barnes", which were published in various newspapers around

pos: James Iredell Supreme Court, and on May 12, he was confirmed by the United States Senate, and received his commission the same day. At the age of 38, Iredell was the youngest of the early Supreme Court Justices. The case load of the first Supreme Court was light. In fact, the court did not hear its first case until 1791 when it decided "West v. Barnes". The decision was unanimous, but Iredell requested that Congress change the harsh statute governing the West decision. The Justices gathered to hear arguments only twice a year, and we have only a handful of opinions written

pos: William Bradford (Attorney General) case before the U.S. Supreme Court, West v. Barnes losing the decision. On August 22, 1791, Bradford was appointed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and served for three years. In 1793, Governor Thomas Mifflin asked his help to reduce the use of the death penalty. His report to the legislature was in the form of an essay, "An Inquiry how far the Punishment of Death is Necessary in Pennsylvania". In the next reorganization of Pennsylvania's penal code, the use of capital punishment was substantially reduced. Other states followed the Pennsylvania example. On September 3, 1791, Bradford Diemer, William Bradford's

neg: Indian Reorganization Act US Supreme Court heard the "Carcieri" case below), in "MichGO v Kempthorne", Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a dissent stating that she would have struck down key provisions of the IRA. Of the three circuit courts to address the IRA's constitutionality, Judge Brown is the only judge to dissent on the IRA's constitutionality. The majority opinion upheld its constitutionality. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept the "MichGO" case for review, thus keeping the previous precedent in place. The First, Eighth and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have upheld the

neg: United States v. Jones (1883) resulted in a verdict for the property owners for $10,000. The government appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where the verdict was affirmed. Following the decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the US government appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The case was submitted to the United States Supreme Court on October 11th, 1883 and Justice Stephen Johnson Field delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court which affirmed the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Court based its opinion on a bill which was passed by Congress and approved on March 3rd, 1875 which provides that the value of any property

neg: William Paca he rendered an opinion on the case of Betsey that had far reaching consequences when it was overturned by the Supreme Court. In that case Paca argued on solid precedents of international and British law that the District Court did not have jurisdiction over the awarding of prizes brought into American ports by foreign privateers. The Supreme Court asserted otherwise in seriatum opinions and established an exclusive jurisdiction over prize cases vested in the Federal District Courts that took that privilege away from what had been the responsibility of foreign consulates. Paca's opinion was the first District Court opinion to

neg: National Organization for Marriage overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians" Walker did however place a temporary injunction on same-sex marriages to allow the defendants to bring their case before the United States Supreme Court. On June 26, 2013 the United States Supreme Court ruled the defendants in the case lacked standing to appeal earlier rulings in Federal Court. As a consequence, Walker's opinion striking down the law as unconstitutional stands as the final decision in the case. NOM addressed the Supreme Court's ruling on its website, asking the nation "show its displeasure" with the ruling, adding that "the Supreme Court ripped

neg: Washington v. Texas year as the railroad takings case, the Court evaluated what procedural trial rights implicated the "fundamental principles of liberty" expressed in "Hurtado". In "Hovey v. Elliot", the Supreme Court specifically applied the Due Process Clause to some fair trial guarantees, holding that due process "secures an 'inherent right of defense'". Despite that broad statement, the Court emphasized that due to procedural issues with the case itself "our opinion is therefore exclusively confined to the case before us." A decade after "Hovey", the Supreme Court announced its first rule for how the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would be

neg: Montana Supreme Court be issued, its drafting is assigned to a justice during conference. The court attempts to hand down its decision within 120 days of when the case is submitted. All justices must indicate their concurrence in the opinion by signing it, and all justices disagreeing with the majority's decision must indicate this in a written dissent. Opinions of the Montana Supreme Court are assigned a "public domain" or "neutral-format" case citation, which consists of the year of decision, the state’s postal abbreviation, and finally a sequential number; the court’s sixth decision handed down during 2006, for example, would have the citation

neg: Bush v. Gore bothering us.'" On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000, that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law, although this was disputed in a concurring opinion by Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw who nevertheless expressed deference to the U.S. Supreme Court's view on this issue and who also argued that, in any case, the Florida Supreme Court would (in his opinion) be unable to craft a remedy which would satisfy all of the U.S. Supreme Court's equal protection, due process, and other concerns. Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring

neg: Texas v. Johnson messages to be associated with that symbol." The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace. Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. In 1989, the Court handed down its decision. The opinion of the Court came down as a controversial 5–4 decision, with the majority opinion being authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. In addition to joining the majority opinion, Kennedy also authored a separate

neg: Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana United", or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case." Justices Breyer dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. He would have reconsidered "Citizens United" or its applicability to the case at hand but believed that the votes to make such an effort meaningful did not exist. The Court has not summarily reversed any lower Court with four strongly dissenting Justices with so little analysis since 1968. With its ruling the Supreme Court upheld its Citizens United landmark decision. While the Citizens United decision initially appeared to apply equally to state contests, the Supreme Court ruled in Western

neg: Maryland v. Buie that the majority did was inappropriate. Unless otherwise indicated, this entire article is derived from the Supreme Court's opinion. The full text of the opinion is available online at http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/325/case.html. Additionally, audio of the oral argument is available online at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1369. Maryland v. Buie Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States handed down in 1990. In the case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and

neg: Georgia v. Ashcroft judgment in Holder v Hall (1994) 512 US 874—in which he had said, among other matters, that the court's expansive reading of the Voting Rights Act had involved the federal judiciary in dividing the nation into racially segregated electoral districts—he joined the court's opinion in the case at hand, because it was fully consistent with the court's § 5 precedents. Souter—joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer—dissented, on the grounds that Georgia v. Ashcroft Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that a three-judge federal district court panel did

neg: Fong Foo v. United States filed for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and held that the defendants could be retried, based on its opinion that the District Judge did not have the power to direct the judgment of the jury, in this case. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court In its opinion, delivered per curiam, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the grounds that its decision violated the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court focused on the section of the Amendment that reads "nor shall any

neg: Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court held its inaugural session February 2–10, 1790, at the Royal Exchange in New York City—then the U.S. capital. A second session was held there in August 1790. The earliest sessions of the Court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791. When the national capital moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well. After initially meeting at Independence Hall, the Court established its chambers at the City Hall. Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was "West

neg: Marbury v. Madison commission. In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal, and secondly that it was normally proper for a court in such situations to order the government official in question to deliver the commission. However, in Marbury's case, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Examining the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, Marshall found that it had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set down in the U.S. Constitution.

neg: United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. Parke Davis pharmaceutical products." The district court held that the Government's proofs did not establish a violation of the Sherman Act because Parke Davis's actions "were properly unilateral, and sanctioned by law under the doctrine laid down in the case of "United States v. Colgate"." The Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed. Justice Brennan wrote for the majority, Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment, and Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker dissented. Justice Brennan's opinion for the Court began with a review of what the Court had held in its 1919 decision in "United States v.

neg: Bethel School District v. Fraser against the school authorities claiming a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech, and United States District Court judge Jack Tanner ruled in his favor. The school district then appealed to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Fraser's favor with a broadly worded opinion. The school district asked the United States Supreme Court to consider the case and it agreed to do so. The US Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a 7–2 vote to reinstate the suspension, saying that the school district's policy did not violate the First Amendment. Chief Justice

neg: Burson v. Freeman radius statute violated the First Amendment. The Court granted to hear the case, with oral arguments hear on October 8, 1991. The case was heard before Justice Clarence Thomas was formerly appointed to the Supreme Court, and he did not participate in the subsequent decisions. The Court issued its decision on May 26, 1992, ruling in a 5-3 vote, that the Tennessee 100-ft statute did not violate the First Amendment, reversing the lower court's judgement. The majority opinion was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, and joined by Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. Blackmun wrote in his opinion

neg: Carpenter v. United States and Technology Project, argued on behalf of Carpenter. Michael Dreeben, the Deputy Solicitor General in charge of the US Department of Justice criminal docket before the Supreme Court, argued on behalf of the United States. While the Court reviewed the case, some considered "Carpenter" to be the most important Fourth Amendment case before the Supreme Court in a generation. The Court issued its decision on June 22, 2018, with the court split 5–4. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Associate Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Roberts' opinion. The majority determined that the third-party doctrine applied to telephone

neg: Monroe G. McKay U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case to reconsider in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. On remand the Tenth Circuit reinstated its prior opinion in full, holding that the recent Supreme Court decisions did not dictate a different outcome. The supreme court declined review so the case returned to the district court, which issued a final order in 1999 dismissing the case. In 1987, the case of Allen v. United States was heard by judges McKay, Seth and Logan. They overturned a Federal judge's ruling that government negligence in above-ground nuclear weapon tests from 1951 to 1962 caused cancer

neg: Smith v. Spisak State from executing Spisak. The State of Ohio appealed to the Supreme Court. In "Hudson v. Spisak" (552 U.S. 945, 2007) the Court remanded the case back to the Sixth Circuit and ordered the appeals court to reconsider in light of two recent cases, "Schriro v. Landrigan" (2007) and "Carey v. Musladin" (2006). The Sixth Court of Appeals again reinstated its earlier opinion. Again the State appealed and the Supreme Court granted review. The unanimous decision was handed down by Justice Breyer. The court asked two questions; Did the Sixth Circuit disobey the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

neg: Communications Decency Act of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad. On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the Philadelphia court's decision in "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union," stating that the indecency provisions were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because they did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not carefully define the words "indecent" and "offensive." (The New York case, "Reno v. Shea", was affirmed by the Supreme Court the next day, without a published opinion.)

neg: Google Scholar each paper. Google Scholar's legal database of US cases is extensive. Users can search and read published opinions of US state appellate and supreme court cases since 1950, US federal district, appellate, tax, and bankruptcy courts since 1923 and US Supreme Court cases since 1791. Google Scholar embeds clickable citation links within the case and the How Cited tab allows lawyers to research prior case law and the subsequent citations to the court decision. The Google Scholar Legal Content Star Paginator extension inserts Westlaw and LexisNexis style page numbers in line with the text of the case. While most academic

neg: Tet Garcia fought the plant's transfer all the way to the Supreme Court in a landmark case. On August 24, 1990, to emphasize his belief in the truth and importance of what he was fighting for, Garcia took an emphatic leave of absence from the House of Representatives and vowed to resign if the petrochemical plant's transfer was not stopped. Garcia had filed a petition before hand asking the Supreme Court to stop the transfer of the Petrochemical plant to Batangas. On November 9, 1990, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued its final decision on Garcia's petition, G.R. No. 92024 and

neg: Perez v. Sharp alone. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Douglas Edmonds held that the statute violated the religious freedom of the plaintiffs, since the anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacrament of matrimony. By its decision in this case, the California Supreme Court became the first court of the 20th century to hold that a state anti-miscegenation law violates the US Constitution. It preceded "Loving v. Virginia", the case in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated all such state statutes, by 19 years, and antedated the civil rights milestones such as "Brown v. Board of Education"

neg: John Marshall legally required to perform. Because that portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, the Court held that it did not have original jurisdiction over the case even while simultaneously holding that Madison had violated the law. "Marbury v. Madison" was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional and it is most significant for its role in establishing the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, or the power to invalidate laws as unconstitutional. As Marshall put it, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what

neg: Blakely v. Washington how "Blakely" applied to their sentencing systems. California, notably, concluded it did not affect its sentencing scheme in a case decided by the California Supreme Court called "People v. Black". The U.S. Supreme Court later concluded that "Blakely" did apply in California, thereby overruling "Black" with its decision in "Cunningham v. California". One week before release of the opinion which invalidated Blakely's sentence, John Knodell III, the Grant County prosecutor who lost the prior case before the U.S. Supreme Court, obtained authorization for a new warrant alleging Blakely solicited a planted prison informant for the murder of Blakely's wife and

neg: Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino sugar. The District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendant, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue taken by the Supreme Court was whether to apply the Act of State doctrine, which would uphold the legality of the expropriation because it was an official act of another country, not subject to question in US courts. The defendant contended that the doctrine was inapplicable for three reasons: The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, found that the act of state doctrine did apply in this case. The Court

neg: Roe v. Wade in "Gonzales v. Carhart" was a clear federal statute, rather than a relatively vague state statute as in the "Stenberg" case. On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, asserting that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges. Kennedy's opinion did not reach the question of whether the Court's prior decisions in "Roe v. Wade", "Planned Parenthood v. Casey", and "Stenberg v. Carhart" remained valid, and instead

neg: Douglas v. City of Jeannette good faith by the municipality in reassessing the enforcement of statutes that had been declared unconstitutional. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, appended to the majority opinion, also touched on the First Amendment issues raised in the case. Douglas v. City of Jeannette Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury." This case is one of four cases collectively known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses Cases", because the Supreme Court handed down

neg: Georgia v. Brailsford (1792) just 163 days later. Georgia v. Brailsford (1792) Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 402 (1792), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "[a] State may sue in the Supreme Court to enjoin payment of a judgment in behalf of a British creditor taken on a debt, which was confiscated by the State, until it can be ascertained to whom the money belongs". The case was the first United States Supreme Court case where a state appeared as a party. It includes an opinion from Thomas Johnson, who joined the court on August

neg: Georgia v. Brailsford (1792) Georgia v. Brailsford (1792) Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 402 (1792), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "[a] State may sue in the Supreme Court to enjoin payment of a judgment in behalf of a British creditor taken on a debt, which was confiscated by the State, until it can be ascertained to whom the money belongs". The case was the first United States Supreme Court case where a state appeared as a party. It includes an opinion from Thomas Johnson, who joined the court on August 6, 1792 and resigned

neg: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier unless "necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline ... or the rights of others". The Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 1987, and the case was argued on October 13, 1987. On January 13, 1988, the court handed down its decision, overturning the circuit court in a 5-3 ruling. Its majority opinion set a precedent that school-sponsored activities, including student newspapers and drama productions, are not normally protected from administrative censorship under the First Amendment. The majority of the justices held that the school principal was entitled to censor the articles. The majority opinion, written

neg: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court failed to note a federal law, which applies to military court-martial proceedings, providing for the death penalty in cases of child rape. On October 1, 2008, the Court declined to reconsider its opinion in this case, but did amend the majority and dissenting opinions to acknowledge that federal law. Justice Scalia (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) wrote in dissent that "the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read 'no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.'" The first significant general challenge to capital punishment that reached the Supreme

neg: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico member of the Court that would write the majority opinion, which is the practice in the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously, the Chief Justice, even when on the minority side of a case, assigned the writing of the opinion of the Court. From 1915 to 1961, decisions of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court could be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In earlier years, the First Circuit frequently reversed the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, sometimes attempting to impose its own interpretations of Puerto Rico's civil law legal norms despite the Boston-based court's

neg: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti concurring opinion. Justice White was joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall in his dissent, with Justice Rehnquist issuing a separate dissent. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment speech protections extending beyond material commercial interests, reversing the decision made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In opinion written by Justice Powell, the court held: In its ruling, the Court first considered whether the case was moot. The constitutional amendment that the appellants had opposed had been defeated by the time the case came to the Court's attention. The Court used the scrutiny described in "Weinstein v. Bradford" in its

neg: Nescafé 2005, the Associated Press reported Nestlé lost a lawsuit and was ordered to pay US$15.6 million to Russell Christoff for using an image of him without his permission on their Taster's Choice label for approximately five years (1998–2003). The $15.6 million judgment was subsequently reversed in its entirety by the California Court of Appeal. On 31 October 2007, the California Supreme Court, with a vote of 6–0, granted review. On 17 August 2009, the court reversed the judgment (opinion S155242) and remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether the ad campaign covered a "single publication", which would

neg: In re Snyder The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, which spoke for a unanimous Court, except that Justice Harry A. Blackmun did not participate in the case. Burger's opinion held that Snyder's conduct did not constitute cause for suspending him under Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the case could be resolved on non-constitutional grounds, Burger wrote, the Court need not address Snyder's arguments under the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause. Burger stated that courts have the power to suspend or disbar lawyers from practicing before them

neg: United States Supreme Court Building Pennsylvania, the Court moved with it and began meeting in Independence Hall, before settling in Old City Hall at 5th and Chestnut Streets from 1791 until 1800. After the federal government moved to Washington, D.C., the court had no permanent meeting location until 1810. When the architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe had the second U.S. Senate chamber built directly on top of the first US Senate chamber, the Supreme Court took up residence in what is now referred to as the Old Supreme Court Chamber from 1810 through 1860. It remained in the Capitol until 1935, with the exception of a

neg: Bradford Journal-Opinion to compel Buermeyer to testify about what he heard during the meeting; Buermeyer and the Bradford "Journal-opinion" declined the request saying that the reporter had qualified privilege unless the plaintiff could prove that he could not get similar testimony from others who witnessed the event. Vermont’s five-member Supreme Court ruled in favor of Spooner, citing the 1972 Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes, in which the high court stated that the First Amendment does not protect journalists from being compelled to testify. Bradford Journal-Opinion The Bradford Journal-Opinion is a weekly newspaper based in Bradford in the U.S. state of Vermont.

neg: City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. The case struck down several provisions of an Ohio abortion law. In an opinion by Justice Powell, the Court struck down each of the challenged provisions. One provision of the statute required abortions after the first trimester to be performed in a hospital. The Court found that to be unconstitutional. The state has a compelling interest in regulating abortion after the first trimester,

neg: Tyler v. Tuel district court opinion in "Whittemore v. Cutter", ruling that "Tyler" did not apply to the transferee of an undivided part interest. Tyler v. Tuel Tyler v. Tuel, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 324 (1810), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. It was the first published Supreme Court decision on patent law. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to "Evans v. Eaton", however, it did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with the law

neg: Legal status of Internet pornography the First Amendment. However, the Sixth Circuit subsequently reheard the case "en banc" and issued an opinion on February 20, 2009, upholding the constitutionality of the record-keeping requirements, albeit with some dissents. The Sixth Circuit en banc decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court where on Monday October 5, 2009, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment not addressing the Sixth Circuit decision that 18 USC 2257 is not constitutionally "vague and overbroad" and able to be enforced. See the one line denial on page nine of the Supreme Court order list for October 5, 2009. In February

neg: Same-sex marriage in Wisconsin of Appeals, which combined the case for briefing and oral argument with a similar Indiana case, "Baskin v. Bogan", and scheduled oral arguments for August 26. On September 4, the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, upheld the district court decision. On September 9, Wisconsin Attorney General Van Hollen asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case. The Seventh Circuit stayed enforcement of its ruling on September 18. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of this case, allowing the Circuit Court's ruling to take effect. Attorney-General J.B. Van Hollen responded

neg: Joyce L. Kennard sweatshop conditions in its overseas manufacturing plants. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, but ultimately the Court declined to render an opinion, instead letting the California Supreme Court's decision stand. Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, who had criticized the California Supreme Court's decision, represented Nike. Kennard had a reputation for aggressive questioning during oral argument. She did not hesitate to ask long and complicated questions—often speaking for minutes at a time before prompting an attorney to respond, and often asked the first question in a given case. on April 5, 2014, Kennard retired from the court after 25 years of service.

neg: Limelight Networks Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the case. The Court of Appeals stated that the trial court determined that Limelight did not directly infringe on Akamai's patent. A slim majority in this three-way divided opinion also announced a revised legal theory of induced infringement, remanded the case to the trial court giving Akamai an opportunity for a new trial to attempt to prove induced infringement. On December 28, 2012, Limelight filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Federal Circuit regarding the standard for induced infringement in cases where multiple parties may

neg: United States v. Dominguez Benitez it did not consider record evidence that tended to show that any misunderstanding was inconsequential, or what the relative significance of the factors involved in Benitez' plea decision were regardless of the Rule 11 error. The Court acknowledged that the standard it imposed would be very rarely met, but that it was still easier than if the defendant had to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Though the Supreme Court did not explicitly decide whether Benitez met the proper standard, its opinion nonetheless proceeded with an unfavorable analysis of his case. The Court believed that his statements

neg: Handly's Lessee v. Anthony for the defendant Anthony, and plaintiff Handly's lessee appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. Marshall first reviewed the facts of the case, including the various land grants of Virginia, the geography of the land in question, competing requests for instructions to the jury in the trial court, and the trial court's decision. The plaintiff had appealed on the basis of two questions: First, whether the land did, in fact, lie within the jurisdiction of Kentucky and, second, as to the trial court's instruction to the jury defining what the "river"

neg: Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prominent conservative judge, and joined by Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards, who also filed a concurring opinion. Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, stating that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act precluded the court from hearing the case until after the individual mandate took effect. It was reported that the Supreme Court might attempt to follow Kavanaugh's opinion had they wished to hold off on deciding the issue. The Supreme Court indeed heard oral arguments regarding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, ultimately unanimously ruling (though with differing rationales) that it did not apply to this case. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of the

neg: Voting Rights Act of 1965 constitutionality of Section 2 as appropriate legislation passed to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and under what rationale, remains unclear. In "Mississippi Republican Executive Opinion v. Brooks" (1984), the Supreme Court summarily affirmed, without a written opinion, a lower court's decision that 1982 amendment to Section 2 is constitutional. Justice Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Burger, dissented from the opinion. Their reasoning was that the case presented complex constitutional issues that should have warranted a full hearing. In later cases, the Supreme Court is more likely to disregard one of its previous judgments that lacks a written opinion, but

neg: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supreme Court, which granted "certiorari" and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit did not change its opinion, so on September 25, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation filed a petition for "certiorari" with the Supreme Court with respect to the Second Federal Circuit decision. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of the Federal Circuit's ruling. On June 13, 2013, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court invalidated Myriad's claims to isolated genes. The Court held that merely isolating genes that are found in nature

neg: Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City a twenty-story building on top of it. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that under a new taking test that it formulated in this opinion, the economic impact on Penn Central was not severe enough to constitute a taking because Penn Central conceded that it could still continue with its present use whose return was reasonable. Thus, the regulation did not interfere with its reasonable investment-backed expectations. The court therefore found that the city's restrictions on Grand Central Terminal did not amount to a taking. The case is perhaps best summarized in Section II-C of the Opinion of the Court.

neg: Constitution of Bhutan 65). Where a question of law or fact is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court, the King may refer the question to the Supreme Court for its consideration, which hears the reference and submit its opinion to him. The Supreme Court may, on its own motion or on an application made by the Attorney General or by a party to a case, withdraw any case pending before the High Court involving a substantial question of law of general importance relating to the interpretation of this

neg: Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum the damages Tenenbaum owed Sony "et al.", and instead reinstated the original full value of $675,000. On February 13, 2012, Tenenbaum petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the case. The court denied the petition on May 21. Although the First Circuit Court, in its opinion, recommends Congress to reanalyze its copyright laws, the United States Supreme Court has yet to weigh in with its opinion. As such, the current legal precedents and legal situation for the states in the First District are as follows: Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum (1st Circuit

neg: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court is ordinarily subject to general jurisdiction only in its state of incorporation and the state where it maintains its principal Place of business. Following "Daimler," the California courts determined that they did not have general jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers. However, the California Supreme Court upheld specific jurisdiction in this case, as to both the resident and non-resident plaintiffs. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the California Supreme Court's decision. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, which was joined by all but one of the Justices. The Court held that California state courts did not have jurisdiction over

neg: Free Exercise Clause function of determining if a cause is religious or not violates the First Amendment. In 1940, the Supreme Court decided in "Minersville School District v. Gobitis" that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses in a school could be required to salute the flag. The ruling in "Gobitis", however, did not stand for long. In 1943, "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette", the Supreme Court essentially reversed its previous opinion. Justice Frankfurter had, in the Gobitis case, suggested that the Witnesses attempt to reverse the School Board's policy by exercising their vote. In the Barnette case, however, Justice Robert H.

neg: North v. Russell had been tried and convicted in a court presided over by a judge without legal training. The district court denied relief, as did the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which vacated and remanded to the appeals court on an issue of jurisdiction. The appeals court sustained the federal constitutional issue, and the case was again appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 6-2 decision, the Court upheld the statute as constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the majority opinion. The first claim made by the appellant was that the

neg: Arizona SB 1070 Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt." On May 9, 2011, Governor Brewer announced that Arizona would appeal directly to the US Supreme Court, rather than request a hearing "en banc" before the Ninth Circuit. That appeal was filed on August 10, 2011. In response, the Justice Department requested for the Supreme Court to stay out of the case and said that the lower courts' actions were appropriate. Observers thought it likely that the Supreme Court

neg: Abington School District v. Schempp did not change its nature as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Because of the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case to the district court. The district court again found for Schempp. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated with a similar Maryland case launched by O'Hair. The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific findings of fact that the children's attendance at

neg: County Unit System system just months before the 1962 gubernatorial primary. Gray appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which on March 8, 1963, rendered a decision by a vote of 8–1 declaring the County Unit System unconstitutional in its current form. In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote, "The concept of political equality...can mean only one thing—one person, one vote." The "Gray v. Sanders" case was the first One Person, One Vote decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Due to the court's injunction of the County Unit System in 1962, that year's Democratic gubernatorial primary was the first to

neg: Supreme Court of Bhutan Supreme Court of Bhutan The Supreme Court of Bhutan is the Kingdom of Bhutan's highest court of review and interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court consists of one Chief Justice and four Drangpons (Associate Justices). Its appellate jurisdiction is accompanied by a limited original jurisdiction on questions of such a nature and public importance that "it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court". The Druk Gyalpo, or King of Bhutan, "may refer" the question to the Supreme Court for its consideration; the Supreme Court must then hear the case and submit an opinion to the King.

neg: Evans v. Jordan although the machinery itself had been constructed before its date." However, the district judge Tucker did not agree with Marshall's reasoning. Therefore, the case went to the Supreme Court on a certificate of division. The Court, minus Justice Todd who was absent, unanimously affirmed Justice Marshall's judgment in the district court. The opinion was authored by Justice Washington. The court held, first, that the statute plainly did not exempt infringers from damages for a continuing infringement after the patent was renewed, and second, that any hardship caused by this result could not justify construing the statute in a way that

neg: Augustus Noble Hand (2nd Cir. 1934), which ruled that the novel "Ulysses", by James Joyce, was not obscene and therefore could not be banned from import into the U.S. The opinion was significant in its urging that any test of obscenity could not rely on mere isolated passages but instead had to consider the work as a whole, a test the Supreme Court later endorsed. These principles, filtered through a long line of later cases, ultimately influenced the U.S. Supreme Court's case law on obscenity standards. Hand's opinion also displayed a historical perspective of the harm of overzealous censorship:Art certainly cannot advance under

neg: John Rutledge Rutledge was largely responsible for denying the Supreme Court the right to give advisory opinions. Being a judge himself, he strongly believed that a judge's sole purpose was to resolve legal conflicts; he held that a judge should hand down an opinion only when ruling on an actual case. He also thought that the legal community was the higher tier of society. Rutledge also argued that if either house of the legislature was to have the sole authority to introduce appropriation bills, it should be the Senate. He noted that the Senate, by nature of its lengthier terms of office,

neg: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in "Plessy v. Ferguson" set down for the majority opinion later in "Brown v. Board of Education". After granting a writ of "certiorari" and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court.

neg: PCO Judges case president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, spoke out strongly against the issuance of contempt of court notices to the judges, saying that the Supreme Judicial Council, not the Supreme Court, should not be hearing the case. Jahangir was subsequently asked by the Supreme Court Bar Association to keep from issuing statements on the matter, and to not suggest that her personal opinion reflected the opinion of the Supreme Court Bar Association. PCO Judges case The Provisional Constitutional Order Judges case (shortened to PCO Judges case), refers to cases heard and decided by the Pakistan Supreme Court pertaining to the

neg: Wilson v. Girard this case. One of those conditions was that the U.S. could waive its jurisdiction, which is what the U.S. did in this case. The court then stated that it saw no constitutional problems with such a diplomatic agreement, and that therefore the "wisdom" of such agreements are completely within the realm of the political branches. The court upheld the district court's denial of "habeas corpus", and reversed the injunction. This cleared the way for the Executive Branch to hand Girard over to the Japanese. Wilson v. Girard Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court

neg: Commerce Clause Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the appeal immediately, rather than going through the Fourth Circuit. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case in the spring of 2012. The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 26–28, 2012. Its majority opinion agreed that upholding the PPACA under the commerce clause "would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority" and that "the power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated". The Court held that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to

neg: Michigan v. Long this opinion helped clarify what had theretofore been ambiguous, some critics charged that "Michigan v. Long" was politically motivated. Justice Stevens, for example, enumerated the ways the US Supreme Court had previously handled such ambiguities. Predominantly, the Court sent cases back down for clarification, but in "Long" they ruled directly against it without awaiting clarification. Presumably, the more conservative Burger court sought to reverse the liberal Michigan decision. Michigan v. Long Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended "Terry v. Ohio", to allow searches of car compartments during a

neg: First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles Angeles to recover the property tax charges weighed by the County. Four years later, on June 30, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of First Church in court case: 357 US 545 First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles, California. In a 7 to 1 decision, with Justice Brennan writing for the majority opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the State's loyalty oath requirement. (Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had signed the Levering Act when he was the Governor of California prior to joining the court on January 11, 1954, recused himself.) BURR was

neg: Judicial review in the United States function. This apparently was the first Supreme Court case to find an act of Congress unconstitutional. However, there was not an official report of the case and it was not used as a precedent. "Hylton v. United States", 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796), was the first case decided by the Supreme Court that involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress. It was argued that a federal tax on carriages violated the constitutional provision regarding "direct" taxes. The Supreme Court upheld the tax, finding it was constitutional. Although the Supreme Court did not strike down the

neg: Consular nonreviewability but no further details were provided. Din filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arguing that the government denied her due process of law by depriving her of her "constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse." The District Court rejected her argument, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The United States appealed the reversal in the Supreme Court. Per the "Mandel" test, there were two questions at hand: The case was won by the United States, with the Supreme Court split in its opinion. Antonin Scalia, John

neg: Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, June 9, 2009, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It issued a "per curiam" denial of the applications for a stay of the sale from the three Indiana funds, allowing the sale of assets to "New Chrysler" to proceed. It did not discuss the underlying issues raised, and its opinion cautioned that its denial of the stay was not a judgment on the underlying merits. According to the two-page decision and order, the Indiana funds "have not carried the burden" of demonstrating that the Supreme Court was required. The U.S. Department of the

neg: Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia v. Pollak public convenience, comfort, and safety. Pollak and Martin appealed the Commission decision to the U.S. District Court for D.C., which dismissed the case. Pollak and Martin then appealed to the Court of Appeals for D.C., which reversed and gave instructions for the district court to vacate the Commission decision. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari for consideration of case given its novelty and its importance to the public. The majority opinion by Justice Burton that the playing of music with occasional announcements that were explanatory and commendatory of Capital Transit's services did not violate the First Amendment's protection of Freedom

neg: John Marshall political domination of the Democratic-Republicans after 1800. Soon after becoming Chief Justice, Marshall changed the manner in which the Supreme Court announced its decisions. Previously, each Justice would author a separate opinion (known as a "seriatim" opinion) as was done in the Virginia Supreme Court of his day and is still done today in the United Kingdom and Australia. Under Marshall, however, the Supreme Court adopted the practice of handing down a single majority opinion of the Court, allowing it to present a clear rule. The Court met in Washington only two months a year, from the first Monday in

neg: Judicial review in the United States of judicial review. The Supreme Court's landmark decision regarding judicial review is "Marbury v. Madison", 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). "Marbury" was the first Supreme Court decision to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The case arose when William Marbury filed a lawsuit seeking an order (a "writ of mandamus") requiring the Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver to Marbury a commission appointing him as a justice of the peace. Marbury filed his case directly in the Supreme Court, invoking the Court's "original jurisdiction", rather

neg: United States v. Klein account were met, the money in the account would be used to pay compensation previous awarded by the courts against the bank. The bank argued that the court should rely on "Klein" to find that Congress had unconstitutionally directed the outcome of the case. The majority opinion found that more recent case law, particularly "Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society", has reduced the precedent value of "Klein", but did clarify what role "Klein" still has in American jurisprudence: United States v. Klein United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case stemming

neg: S. R. Bommai v. Union of India said section on its merits. But Article 74(2) as such is no bar to the power of judicial review regarding the material on the basis of which the proclamation is issued. The Supreme Court also held that the power of the court to restore the government to office in case it finds the proclamation to be unconstitutional, it is, in Courts opinion, beyond question. Even in case the proclamation is approved by the Parliament it would be open to the court to restore the State government to its office in case it strikes down the proclamation as unconstitutional. If this

neg: Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley that either the federal statute did not apply because they had been issued the passes decades before the law went into effect, or if the law did apply, that it was unconstitutional because it deprived them of their property (the passes). The lower federal courts decided in favor of the Mottleys, and the railroad appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, "sua sponte", questioned the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, transforming the issue into whether this was a case that could have been brought in federal court in the first place. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by

neg: Network DVR content providers began the process of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking cert in late 2008. The Supreme Court delayed hearing the case and instead referred it to the United States Solicitor General's office for the federal government's opinion on the case. In June 2009 the US Supreme Court refused to hear a final appeal in the Cablevision remote DVR case, thereby bringing the years-long litigation to a close. As the Cablevision litigation had a favorable outcome, the future looks bright for RS-DVR systems. Many major U.S. cable companies are expected to implement their own RS-DVR systems, as RS-DVRs

neg: Intellectual freedom free speech case of two defendants convicted of inciting anti-war sentiment and action, Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis aligns the freedoms of speech and expression with the freedom of thought as follows: A case in which the Supreme Court sustains the conviction of a woman for anti-government speech akin to terrorism. In his opinion on the matter, Justice Brandeis delineates the role of freedom of thought to inform free speech, attributing the value of intellectual freedom as a civil liberty to the founders of the United States, asserting: A case in which the US Supreme Court deliberated whether a citizen's

neg: Ahrens v. Clark the case and knew his reasoning. He also knew of "Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court" (1973), in which the Supreme Court held: Justice Stevens used his background from the cases when drafting the majority opinion in "Rasul v. Bush" (2004). The Court held that the US courts had jurisdiction in the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia over the officers of the executive branch who were the policymakers and ultimate custodians of the detainees and the facility at Guantanamo. Ahrens v. Clark Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case that

neg: FTC v. Dean Foods Co. Dean immediately began closing Bowman down and eliminating it as a business. The Supreme Court (5-4), in an opinion by Justice Tom C. Clark. recognized that the FTC had several times, without success, asked Congress to pass a law authorizing it to obtain preliminary injunctions in merger cases. The Court said that this did not matter: "Congress neither enacted nor rejected these proposals; it simply did not act on them." In any case, the Court added, nothing has limited the courts' historic powers under the All Writs Act. "We thus hold that the Commission has standing to seek preliminary relief

neg: Abbate v. United States who had already been prosecuted in another court for an offense stemming from his actions. This case was decided the same day as "Bartkus v. Illinois", a case with similar facts except the order of the convictions was reversed: the state conviction followed the federal conviction. The Supreme Court likewise did not find a Double Jeopardy violation. This case is also a rare example of the majority opinion's author writing a separate opinion concurring in his own majority opinion. Abbate v. United States Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The

neg: Maria Lourdes Sereno United Nations, World Bank, and US Agency for International Development. Sereno served as a co-counsel with Justice Florentino Feliciano on the Fraport case in Singapore, in which the Republic of the Philippines won the case. In August 2010, she was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, its 169th Member and the first appointee to the High Court by President Benigno Aquino III. Sereno, the 13th woman appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court, was the youngest appointee to the court since Manuel Moran in 1945 until Marvic Leonen surpassed her at the age of 49 in

neg: Snyder v. Phelps Maine. In an 8–1 decision (with the justices ruling the same way as they did in "United States v. Stevens" in 2010), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, upholding the Fourth Circuit's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts (as in the "Stevens" case) wrote the majority opinion stating "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous." The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not

neg: Biological patents in the United States exist alone in nature "can" be patented and that the drug screening claims were valid, and confirmed in part, finding the diagnostic claims unpatentable. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert and remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit did not change its opinion, so on September 25, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court with respect to the second Federal Circuit Decision. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of the Federal Circuit's

neg: War of the currents man. After the gathered testimony was submitted and the two sides presented their case, Judge Edwin Day ruled against Kemmler's appeal on October 9 and US Supreme Court denied Kemmler's appeal on May 23, 1890. When the chair was first used, on August 6, 1890, the technicians on hand misjudged the voltage needed to kill William Kemmler. After the first jolt of electricity Kemmler was found to be still breathing. The procedure had to be repeated and a reporter on hand described it as "an awful spectacle, far worse than hanging." George Westinghouse commented: "They would have done better using

neg: The Cases That Haunt Us police as David Cohen ... or someone very much like him". Nigel Cawthorne, on the other hand, dismissed Cohen as a likely suspect because in the asylum his assaults were undirected, and his behaviour was wild and uncontrolled, whereas the Ripper seemed to attack specifically and quietly. Regarding the case of JonBenét, Douglas contends that John and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter. Of the case, he said: "Many crimes are tried in the court of public opinion long before they reach a court of law. But I know of no other case in which the majority of people

neg: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States In this event the writ of "certiorari" is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of "cert", this dismissal is customarily made using a simple "per curiam" decision without explanation. Customarily, justices who were not seated at the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court do not participate in the formulation of an opinion. Likewise, a justice leaving the Court prior to the handing down of an opinion does not take part in the Court's opinion. Should the composition of the Court materially

neg: Coram nobis coram nobis, “a phantom in the Supreme Court's cases” and contends “[t]wo ambiguous decisions on the subject in the history of the Supreme Court are inadequate.” The Sixth Circuit took a similar stance saying, “[t]he Supreme Court has decided only one coram nobis case in the last forty-two years, "Morgan", and that opinion is ambiguous concerning whether proof of an ongoing civil disability is required.” The First Circuit wrote that its decision of time limitations “derives from the Morgan Court's cryptic characterization of coram nobis as a ‘step in the criminal case.’” In another case, the First Circuit writes, “[t]he

neg: Abrams v. United States "Abrams" expressed a different and more liberal understanding of the First Amendment, but that the "Abrams" dissent set the standard for modern First Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has rejected this view, however. The "Abrams" case has been kept alive by the scholarly dispute, but in recent years the Supreme Court has not cited either the majority opinion or Holmes' dissent as authority. The World War I sedition cases were overshadowed by new prosecutions under new statutes in World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War and the War on Terror. Learned Hand, a judge of the Second Circuit

neg: Judicial opinion part of the body of case law. Such decisions can usually be cited as precedent by later courts. In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered sections. This allows judges who write an opinion "concurring in part" or "dissenting in part" to easily identify which parts they join with the majority, and which sections they do not. An opinion may be released in several stages of completeness. First, a bench opinion may be handed down, with the judge or panel of judges indicating their decision

neg: Treaty Clause treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether

neg: Turkcell described as the first evidence of traffic monitoring and manipulation in Turkey with deep packet inspection. In May 2013, Turkcell dropped its multibillion-dollar US lawsuit against MTN Group, citing a US Supreme Court ruling that hurt its case. The operator filed a $4.2 billion lawsuit in Washington in 2012 alleging the company used bribery to win a mobile license in Iran that was first awarded to Turkcell. The court delayed the case in October 2012 pending a US Supreme Court decision on the Alien Tort Statute, the U.S. human rights law on which Turkcell's suit is based. Turkcell Turkcell (,

neg: Sonia Sotomayor Second Amendment is binding against state governments. On the contrary, in "Presser v. Illinois", a Supreme Court case from 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state". With respect to the "Presser v. Illinois" precedent, the panel stated that only the Supreme Court has "the prerogative of overruling its own decisions," and the recent Supreme Court case of "District of Columbia v. Heller" (which struck down the district's gun ban as unconstitutional) did "not invalidate this longstanding principle". The

neg: Bayugan 2008 decision striking down the constitutionality of Republic Act 9405. Voting 7-6, with two justices abstaining, the SC reinstated its decision declaring RA 9405 as unconstitutional. However, in another twist of fate for Bayugan, the Supreme Court once again upheld for the 3rd time and final time the constitutionality of RA 9405 on February 17, 2011, thereby finalizing the cityhood of Bayugan and the other fifteen LGUs affected by the law. On July 3, 2011, the Supreme Court ordered its Clerk of Court to issue an entry of judgment on the cityhood case, sealing with finality the constitutionality of the

neg: Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez welfare-advocacy restriction. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on October 4, 2000, issuing its decision four months later. The Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the restriction on pursuing welfare advocacy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a vote of 5–4. Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion. It distinguished a 1991 Supreme Court case, "Rust v. Sullivan", which upheld a prohibition on federally funded family planning services from discussing abortion with their patients. The majority reasoned that in "Rust" the government was attempting to use its funds to express