Brief for Appellants

• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

...Kansas, August, 3, 1951. Initial Briefs to the Supreme Court. Memorandum Decision to the S...Supreme Court. Brief for Appellants. . In the Supreme Court of the United States Octo...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Milestones in the Law

• General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 563 U.S. (2011)

..., JR., GOVERNOR OF CAL-IFORNIA, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. MARCIANOPLATA ET AL.ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED S... released.As the State acknowledges in its brief, "release of seriouslymentally ill inmates [wou...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Roe v. Wade

... Court, upon consideration of affidavits, briefs and arguments of counsel, finds as follows:. Findi...JANE ROE, JOHN DOE, AND MARY DOE, APPELLANTS,. JAMES HUBERT HALLFORD, M.D., APPELLANT-INTERVENO...

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Milestones in the Law

• Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. (2011)

..., JR., GOVERNOR OF CAL-IFORNIA, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. MARCIANOPLATA ET AL.ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED S... released.As the State acknowledges in its brief, "release of seriouslymentally ill inmates [wou...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit Case Summaries: November 18, 2011

Criminal LawMurder For HireStatute Of Limitations Severance (1)Where defendants in a murder-for-hire case argued that the charges against them were barred by the statute of limitations, the crime was not completed until the victim's wife obtained the last payment from the victim's life insurance policies in 1997, so there was no ex post facto violation since the crime was not completed before the effective date of the relevant amendment, and the charges against the defendants were not barred because the crime was completed in 1997 and resulted in death.(2)Where defendants charged with murder for hire and conspiracy argued for severance, denial of the motion is affirmed because the charges were identical to both defendants, and the evidence and jury instructions were no more complex than...

• Missouri Lawyers Media
• November 25, 2011

• T-Building Co. v. HVL, Inc., (Ohio 2013)

Exclusion of appellant’s expert witness report was not an abuse of discretion because any expert testimony concerning appellants’ alleged lost profits would have done little to substantiate their position that plaintiff breached its duties under the lease agreement. Such evidence would have only been relevant to the element of damages had the testimony presented at trial not sufficiently evidenced plaintiff’s performance under the contract. The trial court’s decision to render a judgment in favor of plaintiff was based on the court’s determination that plaintiff complied with its obligations under the lease agreement. The doctrine of invited error operates as a complete bar to appellants’ claims that the trial court’s brief statements concerning appellant’s lack of damages was revers...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• In re: Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, (2nd Cir. 2011)

... Schuyler, on the brief), for Appellants Diane and ...

• Federal Circuits

• Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. (2011)

...Brief for Rutherford Institute as Amicus Curiae7, n. 14.... App. to Brief for Appellantsin No. 08-1026 (CA4), pp. 2282-2285 (hereinafter App....

• U.S. Supreme Court

• American Foreign Service Assn. v. Garfinkel, 490 U.S. 153 (per curiam) (1989)

... in the cases consolidated with appellants' suit. It concluded that the term "classifiable" i...With her on the briefs were Alan B. Morrison, Paul Alan Levy, and Susan Z...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004)

... redistricting plan, plaintiffs-appellants sued to enjoin the plan's implementation, alleging... the goal of achieving partisan advantage." Brief for Appellants 19 (emphasis added). As compared wi...

• U.S. Supreme Court