Sentences with phrase «court opinions together»

That, roughly speaking, is the idea behind Casetext, an innovative legal research site launched this week that provides free access to court opinions together with a platform for crowdsourcing references and annotations.

I wrote not long ago about Casetext, a new legal research site that provides free access to court opinions together with a platform for crowdsourcing references and annotations.

Not exact matches

Read together, Scalia's opinions are a bracing antidote to the legal opportunism that has infected many of the Court's recent decisions.

«The Court emphasized that respect for the conditions of «living together» was a legitimate aim for the measure at issue and that, particularly as the State had a lot of room for manoeuvre («a wide margin of appreciation») as regards this general policy question on which there were significant differences of opinion, the ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 did not breach the Convention.»

There was a guy named John West who started Westlaw, and it was because there was no copyright in the court opinions that John West was able to put together the National Reporter System.

Compared to the other six holdovers from the Rehnquist Court, he was less often the opinion author in tough 5 - 4 cases, precisely because of his inability to hold shaky coalitions together.

Ante, at 253 (STEVENS, J., dissenting); see ante, at 254 - 255.1 I write separately to underscore not the differences the several opinions in this case display, but the considerable field of agreement - the common understandings and concerns - revealed in opinions that together speak for a majority of the Court.

Together they provide an unparalleled combination of extensive experience providing conflicts of interest legal opinions, representing government clients in Commission investigations, representing clients in public hearings before the Commission and litigating ethics issues in both trial and appellate courts.

Taken together, the analysis in this Comment suggests that the justifications most commonly offered in defense of stare decisis — rule of law, appearance of the rule of law, and deference to legislative authority — do not support affording binding precedential value to secret opinions of the kind sometimes issued by the FISA courts.61

Moreover, this could also be an appropriate test case for the Supreme Court to clarify that the principles set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessible.»

Ultimately the best court is the one of public opinion, if people get together and protest this decision in the streets, (just like when Harvey Milk's murderer got acquitted), the victim may be able to find some strength in healing.

I suspect it'll help reading the two papers together, and Canadian lawyers should keep in mind that US federal court trial judges, generally, do not have the obligation to write opinions adequately explaining every decision they make, even if adequate is only two lines.

According to Attorney Arnold Fleck, «All of the studies coming together; the peer review studies by social scientists and psychologists that do this for a living are saying that it is always best for the kid unless the child is in harms way to be raised by both parents [corrected from the word children]...» and Supreme court opinions presume that parents are fit unless they are a clear and present danger or proven to be unfit.