Sentences with phrase «lower court opinion»

The vote split 4 - 4, which means that SCOTUS let a lower court opinion stand.

The site lists pending and prior - term cases, with a story on each case, additional feature stories on selected cases, links to Web sites relevant to the cases, information provided by attorneys and parties in the cases, the dates for scheduled oral arguments, the questions presented to the court, names of the attorneys in the cases, and citations for the lower court opinions.

Some lower court opinions have said that there is such a right, and a recent four - Justice plurality opinion — authored by Justice Scalia, usually no friend of unenumerated constitutional rights — suggested the same.

Not exact matches

In its opinion, the Supreme Court determined that Endrew's «making some progress,» found acceptable by the lower courts, was not «reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,» noting that it was barely better than «sitting idly in classrooms waiting until they were old enough to drop out.»

Indeed, the lower court judge even relied on (and misapplied) the test established in a 1955 Opinion of the Court, which declared that it would be constitutional for the state to fund students attending nursing school, even if the school was religiously - affilicourt judge even relied on (and misapplied) the test established in a 1955 Opinion of the Court, which declared that it would be constitutional for the state to fund students attending nursing school, even if the school was religiously - affiliCourt, which declared that it would be constitutional for the state to fund students attending nursing school, even if the school was religiously - affiliated:

Some of the quotes below, all of which were taken directly from Justice Kennedy's written opinion, reflect the Supreme Court's response to the lower court ruling, not to the original complCourt's response to the lower court ruling, not to the original complcourt ruling, not to the original complaint.

Today's opinion held that «appropriate» goes further than what the lower courts had held.

The Nevada Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's order in Duncan v. State of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opiCourt, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's order in Duncan v. State of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opicourt's order in Duncan v. State of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opicourt to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opicourt's opinion.

Ruling / Rationale: The Nevada Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's order in Duncan v. State of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opiCourt, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court's order in Duncan v. State of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opicourt's order in Duncan v. State of Nevada, dismissing the suit and remanding the case to the state district court to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opicourt to enter a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of section 16 of SB 302 in the absence of an appropriation consistent with the supreme court's opicourt's opinion.

Tolle took the matter to the Supreme Court, which concurred with the lower court's ruling and issued its own opinion in early Court, which concurred with the lower court's ruling and issued its own opinion in early court's ruling and issued its own opinion in early 1973.

«The immediate cause of these lower returns is undisputed: Fidelity allocated MIP investments away from higher - return, but higher - risk sectors (e.g., corporate bonds, mortgage pass - throughs, and asset - backed securities) and toward treasuries and other cash - like or shorter duration instruments,» the appellate court wrote in its opinion.

When one considers how low the Ontario Fiberals had to stoop to find «experts» to support their ban in the court case, it becomes very obvious that expert opinion in this important area is ignored.

Basing its opinion on these studies, the Central Administration Court in Berlin, upheld a ruling that voided Lower Saxony's ban on Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Pit bull Terriers and regulation of Rottweilers and Dobermans.

Powerful dissenting opinions can sometimes persuade a higher court to review a lower court's ruling.

Earthjustice represented three environmental justice groups and challenged the impact statement, which a lower court judge found illegal, whose opinion was upheld by a state court of appeal.

The decision reversed an opinion by the lower court that the Wikipedia entry could be admitted under the provision that describes the type of material appropriate for judicial notice.

In a recent opinion in People v. Martinez, Criminal Court Judge Ruben Franco held that» [w] hile most of us may consider it distasteful, and indeed foolish, to wear ones pants so low as to expose the underwear... «people can dress as they please, wear anything, so long as they do not offend public order and decency.»»

The lower court said no, finding that «every human being has personal experience and observations of fecal material and I think that, as a result, every human being who is of competent mind can offer a lay opinion as to whether a substance is feces or not.

The page includes a plain - English summary of the case, the questions presented, and links to blog commentary, the lower - court opinions, the oral argument transcript, all briefs, the decision when issued, counsel for each party, and outside resources.

This page includes a plain - English summary of the case, the questions presented, and links to blog commentary, the lower - court opinions, the oral argument transcript, all briefs, the decision when issued, counsel for each party, and outside resources.

As a result, the case was remanded back to the lower court with instructions that the lower court dismiss the case pursuant to the Supreme Court's opicourt with instructions that the lower court dismiss the case pursuant to the Supreme Court's opicourt dismiss the case pursuant to the Supreme Court's opiCourt's opinion.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today in a 6 - 0 opinion (Justice Annette Zielger did not participate) reversed a lower court decision that dismissed a medical malpractice claim against an emergency room physiCourt today in a 6 - 0 opinion (Justice Annette Zielger did not participate) reversed a lower court decision that dismissed a medical malpractice claim against an emergency room physicourt decision that dismissed a medical malpractice claim against an emergency room physician.

Justice O'Leary, on behalf of a 3 - 0 panel of the Fourth District, Division 3, authored an unpublished opinion affirming the lower court's determination.

First, readability scores for federal appellate court opinions and state supreme court opinions were similar.131 Second, readability scores from U.S. Supreme Court opinions were lower than opinions from the other courts.132 Third, briefs from U.S. Supreme Court cases had lower readability scores than briefs from the other courts.133 Finally, at the U.S. Supreme Court level, the opinion readability scores were significantly lower than the brief readability scorecourt opinions and state supreme court opinions were similar.131 Second, readability scores from U.S. Supreme Court opinions were lower than opinions from the other courts.132 Third, briefs from U.S. Supreme Court cases had lower readability scores than briefs from the other courts.133 Finally, at the U.S. Supreme Court level, the opinion readability scores were significantly lower than the brief readability scorecourt opinions were similar.131 Second, readability scores from U.S. Supreme Court opinions were lower than opinions from the other courts.132 Third, briefs from U.S. Supreme Court cases had lower readability scores than briefs from the other courts.133 Finally, at the U.S. Supreme Court level, the opinion readability scores were significantly lower than the brief readability scoreCourt opinions were lower than opinions from the other courts.132 Third, briefs from U.S. Supreme Court cases had lower readability scores than briefs from the other courts.133 Finally, at the U.S. Supreme Court level, the opinion readability scores were significantly lower than the brief readability scoreCourt cases had lower readability scores than briefs from the other courts.133 Finally, at the U.S. Supreme Court level, the opinion readability scores were significantly lower than the brief readability scoreCourt level, the opinion readability scores were significantly lower than the brief readability scores.134

In an opinion issued Friday, Richmond v. New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the two lower courts.

In my experience, judges and lawyers in the lower courts know exactly what to do with concurrences in Supreme Court opinions that don't provide the crucial vote.

Having read all the opinions, but once only so far, I think you are completely correct to emphasize the importance of lower - court reaction to Rita.

However, if the Court of Justice agrees with the Opinion, then the German courts may rule that the lower courts were wrong in setting aside the UDG's original order.

I don't know whether courts around the country are having similar conversations, but between the low public opinion of the court system and the proliferation of self representation, they probably should.

The number of cases the court decided with signed opinions last term, 69, was the lowest since 1953 and fewer than half the number the court was deciding as recently as the mid-1980s.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the lower court and enjoining the Sea Shepherds of Whale Wars fame from coming within 500m of Japanese whaling vessels.

But more generally, I think a district court judge sitting on the Supreme Court might better recognize when a proposed opinion offers little or no guidance to the lower cocourt judge sitting on the Supreme Court might better recognize when a proposed opinion offers little or no guidance to the lower coCourt might better recognize when a proposed opinion offers little or no guidance to the lower courts.

«I think that, fairly read, the lower courts should take away from today's opinion that the Court is serious about the right to confrontation and that statements describing past incidents to law enforcement agents can not serve as a substitute for live testimony at criminal trials.»

The actual cause of concern is rather a scenario in which, because of a prior reference to the ECJ by a lower court, under the CILFIT doctrine a supreme court would no longer be bound by Art. 267 TFUE and could therefore come before the ECtHR for a «second» preliminary opinion.

The Supreme Court of the State of California recently released an opinion in which they affirmed a lower court's ruling granting summary judgment to the defendant in a wrongful death lawCourt of the State of California recently released an opinion in which they affirmed a lower court's ruling granting summary judgment to the defendant in a wrongful death lawcourt's ruling granting summary judgment to the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit.

On the back of the card, Mauro notes, «are a blizzard of stats, including the number of his opinions, dissents and citations by name by lower courts.»

A recent Seventh Circuit opinion — authored, predictably, by Judge Posner — addressed the potential conflicts in detail in chastising what it considered a lower court's less - than - diligent review of a coupon settlement.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the lower court's opinion, holding that the organization lacked standing because its claim was not redressable, as the organization only challenged the canon, and not a state statute that also allowed a party to disqualify an impartial judge based on the same standard as the canon.

The book covers some well - rehearsed ground and swings at some low - hanging fruit: the narrow backgrounds of the current Supreme Court justices, the esoteric nature of much legal scholarship (in that critique he echoes the Chief Justice), the poor quality of most briefs and opinions, and law schools» inadequacies when it comes to preparing students for practice.

Earlier last month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case upholding a lower court's decision to grant the plaintiff a new trial after newly discovered evidence showed that the defendant may be liable for her loved one's death.

On remand from Daubert, the lower court's unease with this new task was clearly evident: «Our responsibility, then, unless we misread the Supreme Court's opinion is to resolve disputes among respected, well credentialed scientists about matters squarely within their expertise, in areas where there is no scientific consensus as to what is or what is not «good science,» and occasionally to reject such expert testimony because it was not «derived by the scientific method.&rcourt's unease with this new task was clearly evident: «Our responsibility, then, unless we misread the Supreme Court's opinion is to resolve disputes among respected, well credentialed scientists about matters squarely within their expertise, in areas where there is no scientific consensus as to what is or what is not «good science,» and occasionally to reject such expert testimony because it was not «derived by the scientific method.&rCourt's opinion is to resolve disputes among respected, well credentialed scientists about matters squarely within their expertise, in areas where there is no scientific consensus as to what is or what is not «good science,» and occasionally to reject such expert testimony because it was not «derived by the scientific method.»

[175] In my respectful opinion, a close reading of both the Federal Court decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Johnstone and CHRT, 2013 FC 113 (CanLII) and the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the appeal from that decision... reveal a recognition of the difficulties associated with a low threshold.

Due to the lack of a clear majority and the nature of the reasoning of the different opinions, the lower courts have struggled with how to apply Freeman in subsequent cases.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a dog bite case requiring the court to determine if the lower court was proper...

The Court of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedencourt, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedential.

A three - judge panel in the 5th Circuit appellate court lifted a permanent injunction placed on the abortion regulations by a lower court, arguing in a written opinion that the state was likely to succeed in its legal arguments.

1) we agree to disagree:) 2) supremacy of EU law for the EU system is the equivalent of the hard core of constitutional values that some national Courts defend against EU (and ECHR)- it is not a matter of «legitimacy» or «patriotism» but of using a «lower rank» instrument (accession treaty) to interfere with a treaty rule: the identical issue is for States who have a «rigid» constitution (alike the Treaty binds the CIEU): the accession treaty to ECHR or EU has a «lower rank» than the Constitution itself, so that the national Constitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwhich prevails.

If a court doesn't want its opinion to bind lower courts, it can be clear in its judgment that this is not what was intended.

It has to be interpreted by the lower courts as to which bits of the judgment are binding and which are merely opinion (obiter).

Some justices seemed sympathetic to the problems caused by splintered opinions for lower court judges especially when, as Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. put it, «If I'm a court of appeals judge, it seems to me the most important thing in deciding the case is to make sure that I'm not reversed.»