Sentences with phrase «opinion by justice»

A concurring opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens means that the decision will most likely have to be applied on a case - by - case basis, looking at different types of statutes that states have enacted to place limitations on class actions.»

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9 - 0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on May 14, 2018.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Cunningham, discussed CR 43.02 relating to the order of proof at trial, and noted that a trial court has discretion to regulate the order of presentation of proof at trial.

The majority opinion by Justice Ginsburg accords with the principle of defendant autonomy, and the long - standing maxim that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a personal defense.

A more restrained, but still vivid example of a simile appears in a concurring opinion by Justice Robert H. Jackson, whose name almost always appears on lists of the Court's all time best writers.

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.

The solution to this vexing funding problem, and to charter schools» legality, can be found in the court's minority opinion by Justice Mary Fairhurst.

These more permissive guidelines were drafted in a concurring opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the author of Nyquist.

He was joined in the opinion by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

Justice Thomas dissented from the Court's opinion, joined in his opinion by Justices Scalia and Kennedy.

Not exact matches

The strategy is intended to produce a bipartisan majority vote for Mr. Brennan in the Senate Intelligence Committee without giving its members seven additional legal opinions on targeted killing sought by senators and while protecting what the White House views as the confidentiality of the Justice Department's legal advice to the president.

On its central point, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

A legal opinion, prepared by law firm Farrer & Co, was published today by the Tax Justice Network: see here (pdf).

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

The plurality opinion, signed jointly by three justices appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives.

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

The majority opinion, issued by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that Hastings College of the Law's «all comers» policy, which required all groups to open all positions to all students, «is a reasonable, viewpoint - neutral condition on access to the student - organization forum.»

The majority opinion was written by Justice Hugo Black, former Klansman and Senator from Alabama.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which means that the Supreme Court upheld Westboro by an 8 - 1 decision.

Even the court's dissenting opinion, expressed by Justice Harry Blackmun, entirely avoids the moral issue.

The concept of justice in my opinion goes well past the grave with death not being a form of pardon received by those who may have escaped justice on Earth.

The phrase has its roots in a 1919 opinion by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, but there's a version of it growing increasingly common today: Falsely yelling «hate» in a crowded public square.

This view is superlatively expressed by the plurality opinion of the three moderate justices in the Supreme Court's 1992 Casey decision: «[I] ntimate and personal choices [are] choices central to personal dignity and autonomy.»

Like many social conservatives, especially Christian ones, I spend a lot of my time reading and writing about religious freedom, especially how it might be affected by the legalization of same - sex marriage and the campaign for «gay rights» more generally.Yet at the same time, I harbor doubts about the position we are staking out.You see, I sometimes think that Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith may have been correct.

• In an online debate, organised by frontpagemagazine.com last December Akyol argued that «Pope Benedict has said, «for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent, His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality» However this is not the universal Muslim opinion... The Mutazila (school of thought believed) that God was rational and «justice was the essence of God, He could not wrong anybody, he could not enjoin anything contrary to reason.»

After the story broke and public opinion wondered why these criminals were treated so leniently, the bishops then made the equal and opposite mistake: having been burned by being too merciful, they turned around and zealously applied the strictest justice, in the form of «zero tolerance» policies.

Although «secular humanism» is a term used most frequently by Protestant Fundamentalists, it was Justice Hugo Black» in delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in a 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins» who distinguished between «religions based on a belief in the existence of God» and «religions founded on different beliefs,» such as «Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.»

The opinion was of a kind we are used to seeing by now from Justice Kennedy: long on windy rhetoric about «dignity» and ad hominem attacks on the basic human decency of the law's defenders, and short on actual coherent legal reasoning from recognizable constitutional principles.

Justice Kennedy's Windsor opinion on the merits deserves all the scorn heaped on it by Justice Scalia's dissent, as well as all of Justice Alito's penetrating observations in his separate dissent that «what is marriage?»

On the Supreme Court, this view was most vigorously advanced by Justice Hugo Black, who first articulated it in a 1947 dissenting opinion.

The stated aim of this volume is to bring to a wider audience «some of the most noteworthy, colorful, and entertaining opinions ever written by a United States Supreme Court Justice.»

But then came, in the most striking contrast, the dissenting opinions in Roe and the companion case of Doe v. Bolton, written by Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist.

No sooner did I return to Boston than the Obergefell decision came down, with the ominous absence, pointed out by Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent, of the key word «exercise» from the majority opinion.

In an opinion written by Justice William Douglas, the Court held that it did.

Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase «suicide pact» was first used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And then how a justice interprets is is informed by their own views and opinions.

Justice Holmes argued against the majority opinion by adding two adjectives to his test: «imminent» and «forthwith» as a better indicator of violation and called the leaflets «poor and puny anonymities,» and that any charge should be «the most nominal punishment» based on their radical views (Lewis 29).

CFD serves the political needs of the Upper West Side by promoting and organizing progressive opinion on local, state and national issues, as well as supporting Democratic candidates dedicated to peace, progress and social justice.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, found that DOMA «violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government,» Kennedy wrote.

If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

He said the union is still reviewing the decision, but found some support for its argument in the opinion written by the one dissenting judge, Justice Michael Lynch.

«The fact that the decision to release was taken by the Scottish justice secretary does not preclude you, as the prime minister of the United Kingdom, from now expressing your opinion on a subject that is of great public concern, and which affects Britain's international reputation and our relations with our allies,» he wrote.

In his legal opinion, County Attorney Robert Meehan said the law would qualify Westchester as a «Sanctuary County» as defined by the United States Department of Justice and jeopardize nearly $ 13 million in federal public safety grants and reimbursements.

The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion).

Lord Atkin's famous opinion in Ambard v. Attorney - General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322, is apposite: «But whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, No wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice.

The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The report, however, commended the former attorney general, Betty Mould Iddrissu, for negotiating down the 163million euros to 94 million euros «This decision by the then Attorney - General and Minister of Justice Betty Mould - Iddrisu, which recommended and insisted that the awards which she had managed to negotiate downwards from about 163 million Euros ($ 163 million) to 94 million Euros ($ 94 million) should be satisfied and paid by the State was, in the opinion of this Commission, one of the best decisions that could be taken in the interest of the State.

«So long as a State has «redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof» — as Arizona did by utilizing the independent commission procedure in its Constitution — the resulting redistricting plan becomes the presumptively governing map,» Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion.