query: which type of opinion becomes law in supreme court decisions

pos: 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

pos: 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

pos: Per curiam decision Per curiam decision In law, a "per curiam" decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively (and typically, though not necessarily, unanimously). In contrast to regular opinions, a "per curiam" does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision, but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed. It is not the only type of decision that can reflect the opinion of the court. Other types of decisions can also reflect the opinion

pos: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early 19th century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion. The older practice is still followed by appellate courts in many common law jurisdictions outside the United States. Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: ""Roe v. Wade," 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The court citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the

pos: Fortunato Benavides in a sharply-worded opinion (Tennard II), held that the Fifth Circuit law Judge Benavides had used was wrong. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that Judge Benavides' opinion had merely paid "lipservice" to important principles and had used a test that "has no foundation in the decisions of this Court." The case was sent back to the Court of Appeals to apply the right standards as articulated by the Supreme Court. On remand, Judge Benavides, writing for the majority of a three-judge panel (Tennard III), reversed Tennard's death sentence using the Supreme Court's rule, holding that Texas law had failed to

pos: 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

pos: Frank K. Richardson and 1980, he wrote two bellwether opinions reaffirming the constitutionality of California's death penalty law: "People v. Frierson" and "People v. Jackson" (1980); Richardson's opinions helped guide the liberal court toward a judicial acceptance of the death penalty. Of Richardson's dissenting opinions, many served as models for majority decisions in later years of both the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. One example of how Richardson was belatedly vindicated is his dissenting opinion in "Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court", 23 Cal. 3d 880 (1979), in which he articulated a conservative, strict constructionist theory of statutory

pos: 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

pos: Montana Supreme Court majority of the court is required for quorum, and a majority of the court must concur in all decisions. If a justice is disqualified or otherwise unable to participate in a case, a District Court judge is substituted, and their opinion is given the same weight in that case as a sitting justice. By statute, all decisions of the Montana Supreme Court must be in writing, and must set forth the grounds of the decision. However, it is up to the court to decide whether an unelaborated order or a full opinion is appropriate. If a full opinion is to

pos: Alberto Gonzales law constitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedents. In the seven parental notification decisions rendered by the court, Gonzales voted to grant one bypass. For "In re Jane Doe 5" his concurring opinion began with the sentence, "I fully join in the Court's judgment and opinion." He went on, though, to address the three dissenting opinions, primarily one by Nathan L. Hecht alleging that the court majority's members had disregarded legislative intent in favor of their personal ideologies. Gonzales's opinion dealt mostly with how to establish legislative intent. He wrote, "We take the words of the statute as the surest guide

pos: Tafflin v. Levitt criminal statutes was not dispositive since state criminal law is similar to federal criminal law. In addition, any incorrect state decisions could be corrected by the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion to address "dicta" from the "Gulf Offshore" case that had been included in the "Tafflin" majority opinion that suggested that implications from legislative history could be used to imply that state courts lacked concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims. His view was that Congress must make an affirmative clear statement in the statutory text to deprive a state court of jurisdiction of claims for that federal statute.

pos: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion for the Court, which commanded a majority only in part. The Stevens opinion began with the issue of jurisdiction, denying the U.S. government's motion to dismiss under Section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which gave the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals "exclusive" jurisdiction to review decisions of cases being tried before military commissions. Congress did not include language in the DTA that might have precluded Supreme Court jurisdiction, making the government's argument to the Court unpersuasive. The government's argument that "Schlesinger v. Councilman" 420 U.S. 738 (1975) precludes Supreme

pos: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is assigned to write the majority opinion for the Court. Even as these decisions speak in behalf of the Court, the writer of the opinion (known as the "ponente") is strongly identified with the decision, and the body of opinions of each Justice enhances his/her reputation. Many important opinions are analyzed in law schools and are well-remembered long after the Justice had left the Court. For example, several of the opinions of Associate Justice Jose P. Laurel were crucial in the development of Philippine jurisprudence and are widely read and quoted nearly 70 years after they had been written. Any

pos: Lochner era unanimous opinion, the Court stated that Fourteenth Amendment liberty includes: In the era's namesake case of "Lochner v. New York" (1905), the Court struck down a New York State law limiting the number of hours bakers could work on the grounds that it violated the bakers' "right to contract". In the majority opinion in "Lochner", Justice Rufus Peckham stated: The following Supreme Court decisions are usually considered to be representative of the "Lochner" era: The "Lochner" era is usually considered to have ended with the overturning of "Adkins v. Children's Hospital" in the 1937 case of "West Coast Hotel Co.

pos: Carey v. Musladin for inherent prejudice established by the Supreme Court in "Estelle v. Williams" and "Holbrook v. Flynn". The test indicated prejudice against the defendant must be justified by an essential "state" interest. The appeals court found the test was applicable to behavior by private spectators and that the decision to permit the buttons unfairly prejudiced the defendant. The state appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In his brief majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas began by indicating that "Williams v. Taylor" limits the phrase "clearly established federal law" to the holdings instead of the dicta of previous decisions. In both "Williams"

pos: Mature minor doctrine heard in Maryland regarding the minor's right to refuse chemotherapy. In Connecticut, Cassandra C. a seventeen year old was ordered by the Connecticut Supreme Court to receive treatment. The court decided that Cassandra was not mature enough to make medical decisions. In 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in "A.C. v. Manitoba" [2009] SCC 30 (CanLII) found that children "may" make life and death decisions about their medical treatment. In the majority opinion, Justice Rosalie Abella wrote: A "dissenting" opinion by Justice Ian Binnie would have gone further: Analysts note that the Canadian decision merely requires that younger patients

pos: Dissenting opinion interpretation of the existing case law, the application of different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts. Many legal systems do not provide for a dissenting opinion and provide the decision without any information regarding the discussion between judges or its outcome. A dissent in part is a dissenting opinion that disagrees selectively—specifically, with one part of the majority holding. In decisions that require holdings with multiple parts due to multiple legal claims or consolidated cases, judges may write an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part". In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United

pos: Smith v. Texas (2007) Professor Jordan Steiker appearing for Smith and Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz appearing for the state, with Gene Schaerr appearing for the State of California as a friend of Texas. The Court granted "certiorari" on two issues. On April 24, 2007, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Justice Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, held that the Texas Court "misunderstood the interplay of [previous death penalty decisions,] and it mistook which of Smith’s claims furnished the basis for this Court’s opinion in "Smith I." These errors of federal law led the state court to conclude Smith had not preserved at

pos: Cameras in the Supreme Court of the United States of the United States proceedings would be "good for democracy." 26% think that televising the proceedings would "undermine the authority of the court." Voters have mixed opinions on the effect of television coverage on court decisions. While 45% say that televising Court's proceedings would be good "because the judges would consider public opinion more" in making decisions, 31% say TV would be bad because justices would consider public opinion "too much." 25% say are not sure or say that televising the Court would have no effect on its legal decisions. While a majority of voters presently watch government proceedings infrequently

pos: Edward Terry Sanford School, Sanford practiced law in his hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee, during the 1890s and early 1900s (decade). As Assistant Attorney General, he rose to national prominence as lead prosecutor during the high-profile trial of Joseph Shipp in 1907, which to date is the only criminal trial conducted by the Supreme Court. Sanford's most lasting impact on American law is arguably his majority opinion in the landmark case "Gitlow v. New York" (1925). This case, which introduced the incorporation doctrine, helped pave the way for many of the Warren Court's decisions expanding civil rights and civil liberties in the 1950s and

pos: Patent misuse of a formerly patented product." The majority opinion is thus a strong rebuke to those analysts that seek to make the misuse doctrine a kind of petty antitrust law, in which antitrust principles of analysis dominate over policies unique to patent law; "Kimble" reaffirms many prior Supreme Court decisions that hold that misuse may be found in conduct that does not violate the antitrust laws. Congress limited the patent misuse affirmative defense in both 1952 and 1998, resulting in (d) of the Patent Act. In 1952, Congress added provisions to the Patent Act explicitly exempting from patent misuse merely charging

neg: Erie doctrine brought his case in federal court to avoid the unfavorable state law. He subsequently won. However, on appeal the Supreme Court held, in an opinion drafted by Justice Brandeis, that such decisions and inconsistent rulings based on a general federal common law were unconstitutional, and that decisions by a state supreme court were "laws" that federal courts were bound to follow under the "Rule of Decision Act". Brandeis noted that the Court felt that "Swift" allowed federal courts to make unconstitutional modifications of the substantive law of a state. He noted that it violated the right to equal protection under

neg: Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins noted, nothing in the Constitution actually grants jurisdiction to the federal judiciary to conduct plenary review of issues of state common law where no federal issue is present. Second, in accordance with that understanding (although this latter point was not noted in the "Erie" opinion), Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 only authorized the Supreme Court to review those state supreme court decisions that "rejected" federal claims. While Congress broadened the scope of Supreme Court review in 1914 to include state supreme court decisions allowing federal claims, Congress never actually authorized the Supreme Court to conduct plenary review

neg: Law of New York (state) authority for all other courts in the state. The New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (NYSCEF) is the electronic court filing (e-filing) system. The New York State Reporter of the New York State Law Reporting Bureau is the official reporter of decisions and is required to publish every opinion, memorandum, and motion sent to it by the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the "New York Reports" and "Appellate Division Reports", respectively. The trial court and Supreme Court appellate term opinions are published selectively in the "Miscellaneous Reports". The most recent decisions are

neg: Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are often cited in decisions upholding the constitutionality of sex offender policies are unfounded. Several challenges to some parts of state level sex offender laws have been honored after hearing at the state level. Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been heavily relied upon by legislators, and other courts in their own constitutional decision, mainly upholding the registration and notification laws. In McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002) the Supreme Court upheld, in a 5-4 plurality opinion, a Kansas law that imposed harsher sentences on offenders who refused participating in a prison

neg: Attorney general translation of their titles. In the Netherlands, there are two types of attorneys-general, that are only historically related. The first type of attorney-general ("advocaat-generaal" in Dutch) is the public prosecutor in criminal cases at appellate courts. The second type of attorney-general ("procureur-generaal", while their replacements are called "advocaat-generaal") is an independent advisor to the Supreme Court. These people give an opinion on cases (called "conclusies") in any field of law (not just criminal law), supported by a scientific staff. The Supreme Court may either follow or reject the opinion of the attorney-general (which is published together with the eventual decision).

neg: Law report Online Bulletin and it initially published a law report, containing the judgments, orders and decisions of the Court. The decisions of the lower judiciary were not reported in any law report. The Supreme Court Reports (SCR) is the official reporter for Supreme Court decisions. In addition, some private reporters have been authorised to publish the Court's decisions. Pakistan inherited a common law system upon independence from Great Britain in 1947, and thus its legal system relies heavily on law reports. The most comprehensive law book is the "Pakistan Law Decisions" (PLD), which contains judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan,

neg: Supreme Court of Texas and in turn may affect the geographic extent of the precedential effect of that decision. In March 1927, the Texas Legislature enacted a law directing the Texas Supreme Court to summarily "refuse" to hear applications for writs of error when it believed the Court of Appeals opinion correctly stated the law. Thus, since June 1927, over 4,100 decisions of the Texas Courts of Appeals have become valid binding precedent of the Texas Supreme Court itself because the high court refused applications for writ of error rather than denying them and thereby signaled that it approved of their holdings as the

neg: Law of Illinois legal system is based on common law, which is interpreted by case law through the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Illinois Appellate Court. The official reporter for opinions of the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court are published on the website of the Illinois Supreme Court using a public domain case citation. There are also unofficial sources such as West's "Illinois Decisions" (an Illinois-specific version of the "North Eastern Reporter") with opinions since 1886. Illinois Appellate Court decisions from before 1935 are not binding. Illinois Circuit Court decisions are not published, but jury verdicts and settlements

neg: Halachic state today." He later retracted his statement. According to 2002 Israel Prize winner Nahum Rakover, who received the Yakir Yerushalayim prize for his research on the use of Jewish law in the legal system, Neeman's opinion was nothing new. He said that the idea is supported in the Foundations of Law Act, passed in 1980, which encourages judges to use Jewish law in their decisions. Former president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Yitzhak Kahan, recommended that Jewish law be implemented even in cases of an existing precedent, although his opinion was not accepted, and former justice ministers Shmuel Tamir and Moshe

neg: Law report Law report ' or ' are series of books that contain judicial opinions from a selection of case law decided by courts. When a particular judicial opinion is referenced, the law report series in which the opinion is printed will determine the case citation format. In the United States, the term "reporter" was originally used to refer to the individual persons who actually compile, edit, and publish such opinions. For example, the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States is the person authorized to publish the Court's cases in the bound volumes of the "United States

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: Oregon Supreme Court what the law in Oregon is in regards to the specific fact pattern that the federal court has before it in their case (see ORS 28.200 to 28.255 and ORAP 12.20). Although only the United States Supreme Court can overturn the decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court, they cannot overturn decisions exclusively based on the Oregon law, though other mechanisms exist that effectively overturn decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court can only accept cases from the Oregon Supreme Court if the decision involves issues of federal law and interpretation of federal law might change the outcome

neg: Greene v. Fisher "clearly established Federal law" under AEDPA does not include Supreme Court decisions that are announced after the last adjudication of the merits in state court but before the defendant's conviction becomes final. Greene v. Fisher Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which sets the standard of review for "habeas corpus" petitions brought in federal court to challenge state court convictions. AEDPA requires that to be set aside, the state court judgment must have been "contrary to, or involved an

neg: Law of Massachusetts have developed a large body of case law through the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Massachusetts Appeals Court. The decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, and the Appellate Divisions of the Massachusetts District Court and the Boston Municipal Court departments, which are published in the "Massachusetts Reports", "Massachusetts Appeals Court Reports", and "Massachusetts Appellate Division Reports", respectively. The "Massachusetts Law Reporter" publishes decisions from the Massachusetts Superior Court. MassCourts is the case management system used by the courts. Law of Massachusetts The law of Massachusetts consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory,

neg: Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea at the pace it should be. The hierarchy of case law precedent is that while the Supreme Court has authority to overrule any case authority, its own decisions are binding on the lower courts as are the decisions of the English superior courts prior to PNG's independence, which are deemed to be part of PNG's underlying law. Decisions of the pre-Independence Supreme Court of PNG are deemed to be foreign law, equivalent in authority to decisions by any foreign court with a similar legal system, and of persuasive value only. The principle of the mere persuasiveness of overseas (and pre-Independence

neg: Government of Kansas of the Courts, and it also supervises Kansas's legal profession through the Kansas Bar Association. All lawyer admissions and disbarments are done through recommendations of the association, which are then routinely ratified by the Supreme Court. The association has 6,900 members, including lawyers, judges, law students, and paralegals. Four of the seven justices are required to affirm, modify, or overturn any ruling of any lower court. Once the Court has reached a decision, one justice is selected to write the Court’s opinion. Once published, the opinion becomes the controlling factor in the state’s law surrounding the issue(s) it addresses. This

neg: Certiorari applications for writs of error when it believed the Court of Appeals opinion correctly stated the law. Thus, since June 1927, over 4,100 decisions of the Texas Courts of Appeals have become valid binding precedent of the Texas Supreme Court itself because the high court refused applications for writ of error rather than denying them and thereby signaled that it approved of their holdings as the law of the state. While Texas' unique practice saved the state supreme court from having to hear relatively minor cases just to create uniform statewide precedents on those issues, it also makes for lengthy

neg: Law of Virginia Virginia has a reception statute providing for the "reception" of English law. All statutes, regulations, and ordinances are subject to judicial review. Pursuant to common law tradition, the courts of Virginia have developed a large body of case law through the decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and circuit courts. The decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and circuit courts are published in the "Virginia Reports", "Virginia Court of Appeals Reports", and "Virginia Circuit Court Opinions", respectively. Most circuit court decisions are not published. The decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are also

neg: Article Three of the United States Constitution than an advisory opinion; therefore, the court dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy." A significant omission is that although Clause 1 provides that federal judicial power shall extend to "the laws of the United States," it does not also provide that it shall extend to the laws of the "several" or individual states. In turn, the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent acts never granted the U.S. Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state supreme courts on pure issues of state law. It is this silence which tacitly made state supreme courts the

neg: Oregon Supreme Court are not required to follow the decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court for decisions based on federal law, regardless as to if the federal court is located within the state. However, federal courts are bound to follow Oregon law and decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court for cases that involve disputes based on Oregon law, even when those federal courts are not based in Oregon, per the Erie Doctrine developed by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason federal courts, and courts from other states, can certify questions about Oregon law to the Oregon Supreme Court in order to clarify

neg: Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States the precedential status usually accorded to decisions of the federal appellate courts has been described as a legal fiction. Some attorneys have argued that unpublished decisions may be cited pursuant to judicial notice. Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States Non-publication of legal opinions is the practice of a court issuing unpublished opinions. An unpublished opinion is a decision of a court that is not available for citation as precedent because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value. In the system of common law, each judicial decision becomes part of the body of law used in

neg: Oregon Supreme Court of the case. The Oregon Supreme Court is the final authority on Oregon law, and absent extraordinary circumstances the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overrule its interpretation of Oregon law (see adequate and independent state ground). Although only the U.S. Supreme Court can reverse or overturn decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court, decisions of the court can be effectively overturned by changing the law. Thus later outcomes of the court can be affected by legislation passed by the Oregon Legislative Assembly or through the initiative and referendum process. Also, in most criminal decisions Oregon's Governor or the President of the United

neg: Stenberg v. Carhart in which case it would violate the "right to privacy" interpreted from the Constitution, as described in the "Roe" and "Casey" decisions. The law had never been certified to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, as it had been challenged two days after the law was passed. Justice Stephen Breyer, in writing the opinion of the Court, cited "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" and said that any abortion law that imposed an undue burden on a woman's "right to choose" (abortion) was unconstitutional. He said that causing those who procure abortions to "fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment" was an undue burden, and

neg: Judiciary of Oklahoma judicial district from which they are selected. Five of the nine justices are required to affirm, modify, or overturn any ruling of any lower court. Once the Court has reached a decision, one justice is selected to write the court’s opinion. Once published, the opinion becomes the controlling factor in the state’s law surrounding the issue(s) it addresses. This is known as "stare decisis". The justices select from among their members a chief justice and vice chief justice to serve two-year terms. The Oklahoma Supreme Court is also charged with the administration of the entire state court system. The court

neg: State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor—would have held all business methods patent ineligible, on the basis of the historical background of the patent clause of the Constitution. In a separate concurring opinion by Justice Breyer, he listed points on which the Court unanimously agreed. One point was that the "State Street Bank" case was not a correct statement of the law. The Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in "Mayo v. Prometheus" and "Alice v. CLS Bank" further expanded on "Bilski" and substantially obliterated "State Street". These decisions established a two-step inquiry in which, first, the court is to look to whether the

neg: Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States Non-publication of legal opinions is the practice of a court issuing unpublished opinions. An unpublished opinion is a decision of a court that is not available for citation as precedent because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value. In the system of common law, each judicial decision becomes part of the body of law used in future decisions. However, some courts reserve certain decisions, leaving them "unpublished", and thus not available for citation in future cases. It has been argued that non-publication helps stem the problem of too much

neg: Gender equality in a referendum, who narrowly voted in favor with 54.7% of voters approving). In the Netherlands, it was only in 1984 that full legal equality between husband and wife was achieved: prior to 1984 the law stipulated that the husband's opinion prevailed over the wife's regarding issues such as decisions on children's education and the domicile of the family. In the United States, a wife's legal subordination to her husband was fully ended by the case of "Kirchberg v. Feenstra", , a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave

neg: Boyd v. United States England. Boyd complied but claimed the order was a form of self-incrimination. In the published opinion, after citing Lord Camden's judgment in "Entick v Carrington", 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, Justice Bradley said (630): Although not expressly overruled, some aspects of the Supreme Court's opinion in "Boyd" have been limited or negated by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. For example, in the case of "Fisher v. United States" in 1976, the Supreme Court stated: Boyd v. United States Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that

neg: Per curiam decision of the entire court, such as unanimous decisions in which the opinion of the court is expressed, with an author listed. The term "per curiam" is Latin for "by the court". The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are usually not "per curiam". Their decisions more commonly take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices which are then joined in by other justices. Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered "per curiam" decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as "per curiam". "Per curiam" decisions tend to be short. The designation is stated at

neg: Software patents under United States patent law Congress has never legislated specifically that software is patentable, the CAFC interpreted the broad description of patentable subject in section 101 of the Patent Act of 1952 and the failure of Congress to change the law after the CAFC decisions allowing software patents as an indication of Congressional intent. The reaction of the defeated-feeling USPTO was characterized in the cartoon shown at right, which appeared in "IEEE Micro" in 1995. The United States Supreme Court remained silent on these decisions and developments for years. The first response appeared in a dissenting opinion in "LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc" (2006). Although "certiorari"

neg: Law of Washington (state) tradition, the courts of Washington have developed a large body of case law through the decisions of the Washington Supreme Court and Washington Court of Appeals. The decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are published in the "Washington Reports" and "Washington Appellate Reports", respectively. Both are published by LexisNexis, while slip opinions are published on the Internet. The Reporter of Decisions is the constitutional officer of the Supreme Court that prepares the decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for publication in the official court reports. Cases from Washington appellate courts are

neg: Supreme Court of Arbitration of Russia The Chairman has several deputies. There are two Boards in the Supreme Court of Arbitration, which supervise decisions of lower courts of arbitration whenever appeal is lodged by a disappointed party. One Board hears cases concerning private law and the other hears cases concerning public law (for example, if a corporation is charged with tax evasion or files for bankruptcy). The Presidium of the Supreme Court of Arbitration deals with appeals on decisions of lower courts of arbitration which have already entered into force. Only the Prosecutor General of Russia, Chairman of the Supreme Court of Arbitration and his deputies

neg: James B. Whitfield of Virginia (bachelor of law, 1886). After service as a county judge and the clerk of the Florida Supreme Court, Whitfield was appointed state treasurer in 1897, serving until 1903. Whitfield served as Florida's Attorney General 1903-4 before being appointed to the Florida Supreme Court, where he served until resigning in 1943. One of his most significant decisions was a 1908 opinion that prohibited excluding African-Americans from juries. Whitfield also wrote a "Political and Legal History of Florida", published in 1943. Whitfield died in Tallahassee, Florida, aged 87. There is a scholarship in Constitutional Law at the University of Florida

neg: Euthanasia in India important question of law involved which needs to be reflected in the light of social, legal, medical and constitutional perspective, it becomes extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of law involved requires careful consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court for the benefit of humanity as a whole."The Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Article 21 of the Constitution includes in its ambit the right to die with dignity by means of executing a living wills/advance directives. After the court ruling "The Telegraph" consulted

neg: Alaska Supreme Court the supreme court was also required to accept appeals from final decisions in criminal cases; now, however, the court of appeals fills this role, although the supreme court still has jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to accept appeals from decisions of the court of appeals (or upon certification from the court of appeals that the case involves a significant question of constitutional law or an issue of substantial public interest). In addition, the supreme court may, at its discretion, hear petitions from non-final decisions by lower courts or original applications in matters in which relief is not otherwise available, including

neg: Bush v. Gore it violated Article II. Bush argued that Article II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret state election law in presidential elections to ensure that the intent of the state legislature is followed. Gore argued that Article II presupposes judicial review and interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme Court did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory construction to reach its decision. In brief, the breakdown of the decisions was: The Supreme Court, in a "per curiam" opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection

neg: Evans v. Jordan would be at odds with its plain meaning. The opinion followed an emerging principle in the judicial decisions of the time on statutory construction: that a statute should never be construed in such a way as to thwart the legislature's policy intent. In the 21st century, the Supreme Court has cited the case in connection with Congressional manipulations of copyright terms. It was cited to support both the 2003 opinion in "Eldred v. Ashcroft", which upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and the 2012 Supreme Court opinion in "Golan v. Holder", which examined the long tradition of upholding

neg: Supreme court the principles applied by the supreme court in its decisions are binding upon all lower courts; this is intended to apply a uniform interpretation and implementation of the law. In civil law jurisdictions the doctrine of "stare decisis" is not generally considered to apply, so the decisions of the supreme court are not necessarily binding beyond the immediate case before it; however, in practice the decisions of the supreme court usually provide a very strong precedent, or "jurisprudence constante", for both itself and all lower courts. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh is created by the provisions of the Constitution of

neg: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced. Since recording devices have been banned inside the courtroom, the fastest way for decisions of landmark cases to reach the press is through the Running of the Interns. The opinion of the Court is usually signed by the author; occasionally, the Supreme Court may issue an unsigned opinion "per curiam". The practice

neg: Scots law detail the law. Legislation forms only one of a number of sources. Common law is an important legal source in Scotland, especially in criminal law where a large body of legal precedent has been developed, so that many crimes, such as murder, are not codified. Sources of common law in Scotland are the decisions of the Scottish courts and certain rulings of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (including its predecessor the House of Lords). The degree to which decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on Scottish courts in civil matters is controversial, especially where those decisions relate

neg: Eric Hanushek district was underfunded compared to wealthier districts. In that case, Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport issued a 189-page decision rejecting the state's arguments, writing that: “Dr. Hanushek’s analysis that there is not much relationship in Colorado between spending and achievement contradicts testimony and documentary evidence from dozens of well-respected educators in the State, defies logic, and is statistically flawed.” In 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed Judge Rappaport's opinion and overturned the lower court's opinion in its entirety. For his part, Hanushek maintains that state and federal court decisions "of the type we describe" (namely, rejecting funding equity appeals) may

neg: Oregon Supreme Court as listed in the Voter's Pamphlet. Oregon's state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, unlike federal courts. That is, the state courts can hear all cases regardless of whether the dispute is based on state law, federal law, or a combination of both, with a few exceptions. Thus the Oregon Supreme Court can hear appeals for cases based on both federal and state law. Although the U.S. Supreme Court is the only court that can overturn decisions of the Oregon court, Oregon Supreme Court decisions as to federal law are only binding on other Oregon state level courts. Federal courts

neg: Lists of landmark court decisions the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the Supreme Court of the United States. United States Courts of Appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow. Lists of landmark court decisions Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a

neg: Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland Federal Supreme Court examines the application of the law and does not examine the facts of the other courts below, unless evidently flawed. When an appeal is filed, the Federal Supreme Court examines whether the law was correctly applied in the contested decision and thus ensures the uniform application of federal law throughout the country. Its decisions contribute to the development of the law and to its adaptation to new circumstances. The other courts and the administrative authorities use the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court as a reference and adopt their principles. Procedures before the Federal Supreme Court take

neg: Amicus curiae perspective on the case. For example, if the law gives deference to a history of legislation of a certain topic, a historian may choose to evaluate the claim from specialized expertise. An economist, statistician, or sociologist may choose to do the same. Newspaper editorials, blogs, and other opinion pieces arguably have the capability to influence Supreme Court decisions as "de facto amici curiae". They are not, however, technically considered "amicus curiae," as they do not submit materials to the Court, do not need to ask for leave, and have no guarantee that they will be read. The Supreme Court of

neg: Florida State Courts System (in capital punishment cases, appeal is automatic to the Supreme Court, bypassing the District Court of Appeal). If an appeal to the Supreme Court is not available as a matter of right, a party can still petition for discretionary review, though only a fraction of these petitions are granted. Supreme Court decisions and case law are binding upon all Florida courts. The decisions and case law precedent of each District Court of Appeal are binding upon all circuit and county courts within that district's jurisdiction. Case law and decisions from another District Court of Appeal are persuasive and often cited

neg: Software patents under United States patent law decisions. The "Manson" decision also began a string of decisions in which the Supreme Court reversed decisions of the CCPA, and then those of its successor court the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which had reversed decisions of the Patent Office or PTO denying a patent to an applicant. In the first of the Supreme Court's computer software decisions (the "patent-eligibility trilogy"), "Gottschalk v. Benson", the Court reversed the CCPA's reversal of a Patent Office decision, thus denying a patent on an algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers. In so ruling,

neg: Samuel Nelson in admiralty and maritime law, and his decisions were rarely appealed. After eight years as a circuit court judge, Nelson was appointed in 1831 to the New York Supreme Court (then called the New York Supreme Court of Judicature) by Governor Enos Throop. Six years later Governor William Marcy promoted him in 1837 to the position of chief justice, succeeding John Savage. As a Justice of the New York Supreme Court, Nelson made his most notable decisions about commercial issues. But his ruling in the case of "Jack v. Martin" (1834), which touched New York state law in relation to

neg: John E. Simonett decisions cannot readily be classified as conservative. "Rather, they seem to be very thoughtful, well-researched expositions of how prior law would apply to the case before him." In "Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.", his opinion for the Court reversing (on First Amendment grounds) a jury verdict against a media company whose editorial staff broke a promise of confidentiality was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Minnesota, judges are required to retire from active service before their 70th birthday. Upon Simonett's mandatory retirement from the Supreme Court in 1994, Governor Arne Carlson appointed Paul H. Anderson, then Chief Judge of

neg: New Hampshire Supreme Court Judicature" as the appellate court with four justices. The Court follows the common law and since "Tomson v. Ward" (1816) has published official law reports of its precedential opinions. In 1876, an act was passed creating the "Supreme Court" as New Hampshire’s highest court. In 1901, the legislature established two courts to take the place of the existing Supreme Court. Jurisdiction over "law terms" during which court decisions were appealed, was given to the Supreme Court, which was made up of a chief justice and four associate justices. Matters formerly handled at "trial terms" were given to the Superior Court.

neg: Tony Mauro Tony Mauro Tony Mauro is an American journalist and author who has covered the United States Supreme Court since 1979, most recently for "The National Law Journal" and other ALM publications. Mauro began covering the Supreme Court for Gannett News Service and "USA Today". He joined "Legal Times" in 2000. Since "Legal Times" merged with "The National Law Journal" in 2009, he has continued as the publication's Supreme Court correspondent. He is the author of several books about the Supreme Court, including "Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court" (2006) and "Landmark Cases: 12 Historic Supreme Court Decisions" (2015). In

neg: Māori Land Court a panel of three judges of the Māori Land Court. The Māori Land Court or the Māori Appellate Court may request an opinion on a matter of law from the High Court of New Zealand; such decisions are binding on the Māori Land Court. Appeals from the Māori Appellate Court, if permitted, lie with the Court of Appeal, and from there to the Supreme Court. The court has no centralised courthouse but has a head office in Wellington and sits in various cities and towns in New Zealand as needed. The court maintains registries in Whangarei, Hamilton, Rotorua, Whanganui, Hastings,

neg: United States v. Washington were fishing outside the reservation. The United States Supreme Court reversed, stating "we are of the opinion that the state is without power to charge the Yakimas a fee for fishing". Following the "Tulee" decision, there were three United States Supreme Court decisions involving the Puyallup tribe. The first was "Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington," ("Puyallup I") which involved a state ban on the use of nets to catch steelhead trout and salmon. Despite the ban, the tribes continued to use nets based on their treaty rights. Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court which

neg: Yamashita v. Hinkle of barring anyone other than "free white persons" and "persons of African nativity or ... descent" to naturalize, and affirmed the racial classifications of previous court decisions. Washington's Alien Land Law would not be repealed until 1966. Yamashita v. Hinkle Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922), is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, affirming the state of Washington's Alien Land Law. The law prohibited Asians from owning property. Washington's attorney general maintained that in order for Japanese people to fit in, their "marked physical characteristics" would have to be destroyed, that "the Negro, the Indian and the Chinaman" had

neg: Corporate personhood reason, and by the former decisions of this Court." Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. Seven years after the Dartmouth College opinion, the Supreme Court decided "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet" (1823), in which an English corporation dedicated to missionary work, with land in the U.S., sought to protect its rights to the land under colonial-era grants against an effort by the state of Vermont to revoke the grants. Justice Joseph

neg: Law report of any kind. Published monthly, the MLR provides timely treatment of significant developments in law through articles contributed by judges, leading scholars and practitioners. Another popular law report is the Dhaka Law Reports, which started publication in 1948. Bangladesh Legal Decisions is published under the authority of the Bangladesh Bar Council. The other law reports include Bangladesh Law Chronicles, Law Guardian, Bangladesh Law Times. The online law report in Bangladesh is Chancery Law Chronicles, which now publishes verdicts of Supreme Court of Bangladesh. After the Supreme Court of Bangladesh was established in 1972, its online law report is Supreme Court

neg: Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC Court decided "Brulotte v. Thys Co.", in which it held that a contract to pay patent royalties beyond the expiration of the patent was unenforceable. The decision was widely criticized in academic circles and by the patent bar, as well as in lower court decisions. The thrust of the criticism was that the patent misuse doctrine should be based on antitrust law principles, and that conduct without a significant anticompetitive effect should not be proscribed. In its opinion in the "Kimble" case, the Supreme Court listed some of the criticism suggesting that the "Brulotte" decision was wrong and should be

neg: Mathew Tobriner the California Supreme Court. Tobriner's tenure on the state's high court is notable for several decisions he authored in the areas of constitutional law and civil rights, property, contracts and torts. His 1965 opinion in "People v. Dorado", ruling that a person accused of a crime must be advised by the police of a right to remain silent and to obtain counsel, presaged the U.S. Supreme Court's "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966). In 1966, Tobriner explained in "Morrison v. State Board of Education" that gay teachers are entitled to employment in public schools absent a "showing that an individual's homosexuality renders

neg: Patty Shwartz judges in New Jersey to speculate that Menendez "is acting out of resentment, rather than any concern about Judge Shwartz's qualifications." Menendez responded to that speculation in a statement on January 6, 2012, saying he had "substantive" concerns about Shwartz's knowledge of constitutional issues. Menendez said Shwartz did not "adequately demonstrate the breadth of knowledge of constitutional law and pivotal Supreme Court decisions, such as Citizens United," the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that struck down many restrictions against corporate spending to influence federal elections. "In my opinion, she misapplied the application of strict scrutiny versus rational basis review to the

neg: Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran may commit in the capacity of justice officers, are tried in public courts. The prosecutor office and courts-martial are parts of the country's judiciary and are therefore subject to its principles. Military trials comprise courts-martial type 1 and type 2. Courts-martial type 1 adjudicate crimes with heavier punishments in law. In these courts, except for a number of rulings which are definitive by law, other decisions can be re-examined. Rulings of the courts-martial type 1 are contestable and re-examinable in Supreme Court of Iran. Currently, on the basis of the Islamic Consultative Assembly’s legislation, Expediency Discernment Council and the Leader’s

neg: Supreme Court of the Philippines by a lower court. Appealed cases generally originate from lawsuits or criminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts. These decisions of the trial courts may then be elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, or more rarely, directly to the Supreme Court if only “questions of law” are involved. Apart from decisions of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may also directly review on appeal decisions rendered by the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Decisions rendered by administrative agencies are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court, they must be first challenged before the

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: Buri Kidu decisions must stand because that was what the Constitution mandated (see Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea). Sir Buri quickly established that notwithstanding any implications of the Rooney Affair as to relations between the Executive and the Judiciary, the judiciary was wholly independent: Indeed, the hierarchy of case law precedent is that while the Supreme Court has authority to overrule any case authority, its own decisions are binding on the lower courts as are the decisions of the English superior courts prior to PNG's independence, which are deemed to be part of PNG's underlying law. The decisions of the pre-Independence

neg: Leander Monks elected to the Indiana Supreme Court. Monks wrote a number of noted opinions. In "Pomeroy v. Beach", he wrote an opinion construing the garnishee law of 1897 to require the filing of an affidavit in attachment before a writ of garnishment could issue. In "Board of Commissioners v. Allman", he wrote an opinion overruling a large number of earlier decisions to the effect that counties are liable for injuries caused by detective bridges. In "Baton v. Thomas", he wrote an opinion holding that usurious interest may be recovered back. In "Louisville, N. A. & C. Railway Co. v. Bates", he

neg: Supreme Court of Russia A plenary session must be attended by all judges of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General of Russia. At plenary sessions the Supreme Court studies the judicial decisions of lower courts on various topics and adopts resolutions, which establish recommendations on the interpretation of particular provisions of law for lower courts for uniform application. Russian law does not recognize judicial precedent as a source of law, but courts strictly follow such recommendations. The Academic Consultative Council attached to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation () is a body created in order to assist the Supreme Court in various

neg: Supreme Court of Iran Precedent", which enjoys the status of law. Judiciary branches of the Supreme Court have the right to hear the complaints about lower courts' decisions. The parties involved in the legal proceeding do not appear in court unless the court cites them for explanations. The rulings issued by this court are in the form of annulment and confirmation of lower courts' decisions. Article 161 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran on "the Supreme Court" states: Supreme Court of Iran is the highest juridical authority in Iran established to supervise the correct implementation of laws by courts of justice,

neg: Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy) within the framework of late Roman law, and not based on common law. Its core principles are entirely codified into a normative system which serves as the primary source of law, which means judicial decisions of the supreme court, as well as those of lower courts, are binding within the frame of reference of each individual case submitted, but do not constitute the base for judicial precedent for other future cases as in Common Law. It is worth noting that while in Civil Law jurisdictions the doctrine of stare decisis (precedent) does "not" apply, however, in practice the decisions of

neg: Per curiam decision the beginning of the opinion. Single-line "per curiam" decisions are generally issued without concurrence or dissent by a hung Supreme Court (a 4-4 decision), when the Court has a vacant seat. The notable exception to the usual characteristics for a "per curiam" decision is the case of "Bush v. Gore". Although it was "per curiam", there were multiple concurrences and dissents. Examples include: The Supreme Court of California occasionally releases decisions in the name of "The Court" but they are not necessarily unanimous. Sometimes, they are accompanied by extensive concurring and dissenting opinions. The Supreme Court of Florida frequently releases

neg: State supreme court Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari). In theory, state supreme courts are bound by the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court as to all issues of federal law, but in practice, the Supreme Court reviews very few decisions from state courts. For example, in 2007 the Court reviewed 244 cases appealed from federal courts and only 22 from state courts. Despite the relatively small number of decisions reviewed, Professors Sara Benesh

neg: Bell v. Cone States Supreme Court denied Cone's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the actions taken by Cone's attorney during the sentencing phase were "tactical decisions" and that the state courts that denied Cone's appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established law. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Cone was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to "subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing." Commentators have noted that "Bell v. Cone" is significant because it clarified the standards that should be used when determining ineffective assistance

neg: Court system of Canada include hearing appeals of decisions from the appellate courts (to be discussed next) and, on occasion, delivering references ("i.e.", the court's opinion) on constitutional questions raised by the federal government. By law, three of the nine justices are appointed from Quebec because of Quebec's use of civil law. The "Constitution Act, 1867" gives the federal Parliament the power to create a "General Court of Appeal for Canada". Following Confederation, the Conservative government of Sir John A. Macdonald proposed the creation of a Supreme Court and introduced two bills in successive sessions of Parliament to trigger public debate on the proposed

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: In re Alappat Street Bank" decision, that the Federal Circuit had transitioned to a new patent-eligibility regime in which a patent would be allowed if the invention was able to "produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result." Moreover, the piano roll blues theory temporarily became dominant in the Federal Circuit for about a decade after "Alappat". In a 2006 dissenting opinion, US Supreme Court Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Stevens and Souter, characterized the "Alappat" decision as one of the Federal Circuit's decisions in which it used a legal test that led to results opposite to those reached in several Supreme Court decisions.

neg: Cheng Tien-Hsi Hutchinson, 1951), "Musings of a Chinese Gourmet" (London, Hutchinson, 1954), and "Reflections at Eighty" (London, Luzac, 1966). He also edited and translated from Chinese into English: "Judgments of the High Prize Court of the Republic of China" (Peking, High Prize Court, 1919), "Chinese Supreme Court Decisions relating to General Principles of Civil Law", "Obligations, and Commercial Law" (Peking, Commission of Extra-Territoriality, 1923. Reprinted by University Publications of America, Inc., Washington D.C., 1976), as well as numerous articles. • Tien-Hsi Cheng at the National Portrait Gallery, London • Opinion from Cheng Tien-Hsi Cheng Tien-Hsi Cheng Tien-Hsi (courtesy name "Futting", familiarly known

neg: Advisory opinion in whole or in part on a question of state law (e.g. diversity cases under the "Erie" doctrine or issues in which federal law incorporates state law by reference, such as exemptions in bankruptcy), occasionally ask the highest court of the relevant state to give an authoritative answer to the state-law question, which the federal court will then apply to its resolution of the federal case (see e.g. "Pullman" abstention). Because the state court in such circumstances is giving an opinion that affects an actual case, it is not considered to be issuing an advisory opinion. The Florida Supreme Court

neg: Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB are typically rendered as an opinion. Decisions of the PTAB can be further appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) under . The decisions of the CAFC may also be reviewed on a discretionary basis by the United States Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the judicial standards for patentability. The United States Congress, however, can change the patent laws and thus override a decision of the Supreme Court. An alternative path is a civil action against the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in

neg: Advisory opinion , the President of India may refer to the Supreme Court of India, a question of law or fact which, he thinks, is of public importance. However, it is "not" binding on the Supreme Court to answer questions raised in the reference. Article 55 of the Constitution of Nauru provides: "The President or a Minister may, in accordance with the approval of the Cabinet, refer to the Supreme Court for its opinion any question concerning the interpretation or effect of any provision of this Constitution which has arisen or appears to the Cabinet likely to arise, and the Supreme Court

neg: John Marshall 63 decisions in its first decades, few of which had made a significant impact, and it had never struck down a federal or state law. During Marshall's 34-year tenure as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court would emerge as an important force in the federal government for the first time, and Marshall himself played a major role in shaping the nation's understanding of constitutional law. The Marshall Court would issue more than 1000 decisions, about half of which were written by Marshall himself. Marshall's leadership of the Supreme Court ensured that the federal government would exercise relatively strong powers, despite the

neg: Law of Azerbaijan law systems such as the United States and United Kingdom, Azerbaijani courts do not rely extensively on case law and judicial precedent. Except for decisions of the Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan, decisions of the courts are not usually counted as a source of law. The sources of law in the Azerbaijani legal system are: The Supreme Court of Azerbaijan is a supreme judicial body on civil, criminal and other cases related to the execution of general and specialized courts. The Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan is the supreme body of constitutional justice on the matters attributed to its jurisdiction by the

neg: Federal Supplement scopes that covered opinions of other federal courts as well. The "United States Reports" are the official law reports of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. The "Federal Supplement" organizes court opinions within each volume by the date of the decision, and includes the full official text of the court's opinion. West editors add headnotes that summarize key principles of law in the cases, and Key Numbers that classify the decisions by topic within the West American Digest System. Although opinions designated by the courts as "for publication" or "publish"