© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
- Language
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
justices on supreme court
More than 10.000 documents for justices on supreme court
-
Understanding the source of voting changes by appellate judges provides an important window into the factors that shape the votes of the judges more generally. We argue that membership changes, by altering the collegial context in which judges make their choices, affect the information environment, long-term collegial considerations, and short-term strategic calculations. As a result, membership change should lead to greater uncertainty and more frequent voting changes among continuing justices in the term following a replacement. We test this proposition by looking at vote change by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in two separate analyses: justices' votes on search-and-seizure cases since Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and on the progeny of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Our results support the ar...
-
PORTLAND, Maine -- Justices with Maine's highest court offered few clues Tuesday on where they stand on the complicated legal and regulatory battle over Plum Creek's controversial rezoning proposal for nearly 1,000 houses and two resorts near Moosehead Lake. Attorneys on both sides were given roughly 15 minutes to argue key points in a case that deeply divided Mainers when it was before the Land Use Regulation Commission. At issue is whether Maine's Supreme Judicial Court will uphold a lower court ruling that would require LURC to reopen hearings on Plum Creek's application more than two years after the commission approved the nearly 400,000- acre rezoning petition.
-
Sometimes at the U.S. Supreme Court, words and labels mean everything. On Tuesday, the justices parsed the wording of a securities law provision to determine whether to label it a statute of limitations or a statute of repose. The answer could have a tolling effect on the ability of shareholders who lost a fortune in the dot-com bust to sue for lost profits.
-
Voters in California will again get the right in Tuesday's election to say thumbs up or down on appellate and Supreme Court justices. Three Supreme Court and 13 Court of Appeal justices will be on the ballot.
-
In a case considering whether federal judges have the authority to impose a sentence to run consecutively with a state court sentence that hasn't yet been imposed, the government and the defendant both urged the Supreme Court to rule in the negative. But at oral arguments on Wednesday the justices seemed skeptical. The case of Setser v. U.S. involves the sentencing of Monroe Ace Setser. Setser pleaded guilty in federal court to drug possession with intent to distribute. He was also set to be charged in state court on drug charges from the same incident, and he was on parole for a previous state offense, and therefore faced parole violation charges.
-
Even before the start of their second year in office, commentators were already reading the tea leaves on Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and John G. Roberts, Jr. According to the prominent legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, the two new justices "were every bit as conservative as conservatives had hoped and progressives had feared. [Their] willingness to overrule decades-old precedents certainly gives a sense that major changes are likely ahead in constitutional law in the years to come.'" Chemerinsky was hardly alone; similar forecasts appeared on the editorial pages of newspapers as ideological disparate as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, as well as hundreds, if not thousands, of blogs across the country.
-
After punting on the issue in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has again waded into the choppy waters of privacy protection in the digital age in a case involving the warrantless use of a GPS device on a suspect's car. But while still not ruling on the privacy issue directly, this time five justices gave a strong indication that individuals' privacy interests may be entitled to constitutional protection.
-
WASHINGTON, April 4, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- The American Federation for Children today praised a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that maintains the constitutionality of a long-running Arizona scholarship tax credit program. The justices rejected a challenge to Arizona's Individual School Tuition Organization Tax Credit Program, in which individuals can claim tax credits for contributing to nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships to disadvantaged children to attend private schools, saying that it is not in violation of Constitutional principles with regard to separation of church and state. Despite having already been upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court, the ruling in the case, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the N...
-
Securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. Shareholders in the case sued Halliburton and its executives under [section][section]10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10(b)-5, alleging that they made false statements about its asbestos liability and other aspects of the business.
