Sentences with phrase «majority opinions of your court»

While the majority opinion of the court did not specifically use the words rational basis, they applied the standard's definition when they ruled that provision unconstitutional.

In September 2002, I published online a letter from a Mississippi - based reader of my appellate Web log who thought odd the practice of one or more of your colleagues on the Supreme Court of Mississippi to dissent, in whole or in part, without opinion from majority opinions of your court.

Not exact matches

That was clearly the hope of the Supreme Court majority that signed onto the opinion written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun.

Many who hated Scalia's rulings could not help but be entertained by his razor - sharp writing, which he used especially in his dissenting opinions to carve up the majority's reasoning (my favorite is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where among other things he referred to the majority's «Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life - tenured judges — leading a Volk who will be «tested by following»» the Court's rulings obediently).

Ironically, the 2016 — 2017 Supreme Court roundup also appearing in the October issue of First Things («A Less Corrupt Term») quotes Justice Samuel Alito saying of the Court's majority opinion on same - sex marriage that it «evidences... the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture's conception of constitutional interpretation.»

In the opinion of many constitutional experts, a majority of five Justices of the Supreme Court used the case as a vehicle to reason the Free Exercise Clause out of the Constitution.

The opinions collected here» some dissenting from the majority of the Court, others concurring in judgment but rejecting the majority's reasoning» show how Scalia applies his textualism to these issues, and how it differs from competing theories of interpretation, most notably the «living Constitution» view favored by many on the left and the varieties of intentionalism favored by many conservatives and moderates.

As Scalia's dissent makes clear, the majority opinion in Lawrence epitomizes everything that is wrong with the contemporary Court» its arbitrariness, its contempt for democratic governance, its constant readiness to fashion new constitutional rights out of whole cloth.

But in keeping with Eugene V. Rostow's characterization of the contemporary Supreme Court as a «vital national seminar,» it is worth noting that the original charge to the Court was only that it render an aye or a nay.44 It quickly began handing down written opinions also, however, and under Marshall began the practice of trying for a single majority opinion, which gave «judicial pronouncements a forceful unity they had formerly lacked.

Because public opinion supporting certain kinds of abortion is close to unanimous; it was formed before the 1973 Supreme Court decision; and the majority that have come of sexual age since that year now take for granted that fertility decisions are to be made only by the individuals involved.

Noonan's opinion was later overruled by a majority of his Appellate Court peers.

I still remember my great disappointment in reading Chief Justice Burger's opinion in Lemon, but I hoped then that we would, some day, have a Supreme Court majority that would recognize the paramount importance of the Free Exercise Clause.

In the absence of legislation on assisted dying, we have to establish the right to a doctor - assisted death through the courts but we also hope that Paul's case will help to stimulate public debate on this issue, and convince Parliament to listen to the massive majority opinion in this country and legalise assisted dying.»

In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two - part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: «First, the plaintiff must prove that «race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.»

The text cited in Whipple vs. Martinson was from the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court, not Congress.

The majority Court opinion appeared to concede the challenger's argument, but held that the individual mandate was as a matter of law a tax on a class of people (those who do not buy insurance), not a statutory requirement of affirmative behavior.

... As I read the filed opinions, a majority of the Court would approve statutes that provided for a moment of silence but did not mention prayer.

If so, such an opinion would be especially compelling coming from the pen of Justice Thomas, the lone black member of the Court, who has written for the majority in a number of important cases involving religion and education.

In considering whether Arizona was meeting the requirements of the EEOA, Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion faulted the district court and the Ninth Circuit for focusing on the «narrow question» of funding, and ignoring whether managerial and instructional reforms had brought the state into compliance.

«The majority opinion turns entirely on procedural issues and did not address the trial court's findings that the constitutional rights of LAUSD's students would be violated without judicial intervention,» Sapp said.

The debate between the two policy analysts, which appears to have influenced both majority and minority opinions of the court, is presented in the upcoming issue of Education Next.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion in the Cleveland voucher case, Zelman v. Simmons - Harris, was of course the most newsworthy aspect of the decision, but the dissents were no less revealing.

«It is crucial for a democratic society to provide all of its schoolchildren with fair access to an unsegregated education,» Ellen A. Peters, then chief justice of the state's High Court, wrote in the majority opinion in July 1996.

Their concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion argued: (1) the court should not have reached the issue because: «n reaching the merits of the Section 10 challenge, the court ignores the fact that the Duncan complaint (which raised the Section 10 challenge) was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim under NRCP 12 (b)(5);» and (2) the issue is one of first impression, which the justices, in dissent, said is «not as well - defined and easily resolved as my colleagues suggest,... the proper action here, had a majority of this court not determined that SB 302's funding is unconstitutional, would be to remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings and factual development as to this claim.»

The court's majority opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes: «It is better for all the world,» Holmes wrote, «if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

In her opinion, part 3 seems to cast doubt on the acceptance by the Court of the CJEU's interpretation of Article 53 of the Charter, although she does not believe this was actually the opinion of the majority.

It should be noted that under Spanish law, a member of the Court may write both the majority decision and a personal opinion.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court and concluded his majority opinion by declaring: «We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process.»

For example, the majority or minority opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp., [1995] 4 SCR 634, 1995 CanLII 55.

Yesterday, in the case of Quebec Superior Court Justice Michel Girouard — who admitted to meeting regularly with a man later convicted of trafficking — the CJC rejected the majority opinion of its own inquiry committee to remove the judge from the bench.

A relevant case here is Brewer v. Williams, in which the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, by Justice Stewart, stated that

According to the Court it «did no more than acknowledge the fact that, as stated by the Council in the course of the proceedings relating to that Opinion, there was no possibility of the required majority being obtained within the Council for the Union to be able to exercise alone the external competence that it shares with the Member States in this area.»

«The executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction,» Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 5 - to - 3 majority, said at the end of a 73 - page opinion that in sober tones shredded each of the administration's arguments, including the assertion that Congress had stripped the court of jurisdiction to decide the case.

Thereafter, she served on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and was recognized as one of the pros at bringing majority and minority opinions into line.

Entertaining different views of the questions now before us in this case, and having arrived at a conclusion different from that of a majority of the Court, and considering the importance of the case and the constitutional principle involved in it, I shall proceed, with all due respect for the opinion of others, to assign the reasons upon which my own has been formed.

The majority opinion of Justice Stewart was specifically approved by a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145 where Justice Brian Dickson held, at p. 159, that s. 8 of the Charter containing the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not restricted to the protection of property or associated with the law of trespass, at p. 159: «[I] n Katz... Stewart J. delivering the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court declared at p. 351 that «the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places».

Supreme Court Dec. 29, 2016)-- 4 - 3 decision, majority opinion by Justice Cuellar and dissent by Justice Werdegar; discussed in our Dec. 29, 2016 post: Attorney - client privilege does not categorically shield from California Public Records Act disclosure billing invoices sent by clients in concluded, non-active cases because legal consultation was not the purpose of the invoices; however, the privilege did protect billing invoice entries in active, pending cases.

-- authored by Circuit Judge Hurwitz [majority decision] and concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Reinhardt; discussed in our Oct. 10, 2015 post: District court in Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act case which substantially reduced fee request was reversed based upon its reliance on inapt practice area hourly rates, upon its discounts for plaintiff's attorneys not delegating tasks to associates given that only small firms prosecuted these type of cases, and upon its use of stale prior fee awards involving fee claimant's attorneys.

And before his colorful turn of phrase in Windsor, Justice Scalia created an even more vivid mental picture with his dissent in a criminal case.14 Justice Scalia deplored what he saw as the court's ever - expanding definition of what constitutes «violent felonies» under the Armed Career Criminal Act, calling the statute vague and the majority's expansion of it a «tutti - frutti opinion.»

The court's majority opinion was that «the will of Congress» should prevail and that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil.

This collective self - as - author is an important part of the ethos of the Court, for it represents not just the members signing on to the majority opinion, but also the authority of the Court that rests with those members when they agree on a majority opinion.

And yet, even though Cunningham majority opinion had six votes for a seemingly strong view of the Court's Sixth Amendment work, reading all the opinions in Rita gives me the impression that only three Justices (Justices Scalia, Souter and Thomas) are deeply concerned with safeguarding, in Justice Souter's words, «the guarantee of a robust right of jury trial.»

Most famously, in Chevron v. NRDC, Justice Stevens» wrote a majority opinion for the Court that sternly rebuked the D.C. Circuit for substituting its judgment for that of the Reagan EPA, which sought to give industry more flexibility in meeting their Clean Air Act obligations.

Although an AG's opinion is not binding on the Court, it is widely acknowledged and documented that opinions do indeed influence the Court's decision in a majority of cases.

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, Goldstein notes that Justice Souter ended up writing no majority opinions from the Court's October sitting, while Justice Kennedy ended up writing two, of which Garcetti was one.

According to the Seattle Times, Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (pictured) wrote the majority opinion in a case that capped a 12 - year quest by Armen Yousoufian to obtain documents from King County about public funding of Qwest Field.

The Court was divided 5 - 4 on this issue, with Justice Thomas writing the opinion on behalf of the majority and Justice Ginsburg writing the opinion on behalf of the 4 dissenting Justices.

Disagreeing with the dissent, the majority opinion stated that no Texas appellate court had recognized the cause of action.

«The majority opinion reflects the persistent disregard in a number of judgments that this Court has issued of the clear and unequivocal directions of the Supreme Court of Canada that emphasize the importance of individualized sentencing and limit appellate intervention in the exercise of sentencing discretion by trial judges.

On April 15, 2016, three days after Sargent was decided, the Supreme Court of Canada released its ruling in R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 where, in a 6 - 3 majority opinion written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, s. 5 (3)(a)(i)(D) of the CDSA was declared unconstitutional.