Marriage Laws Amendment Act 2001 Section 7 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: marriage laws amendment act 2001 section 7 Court: us supreme court Year: 2009 Page 1 of about 82 results (2.621 seconds)Herring Vs. United States
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-14-2009
i e lack of due care creates an incentive to act with greater care the government so acknowledges see brief for justice roberts delivered the opinion of the court the fourth amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures and this usually requires the the police department itself is not liable for the negligent acts of its employees see monell v new york city dept here would deter the occurrence of any future mistakes app 70 the district court adopted the magistrate judge s recommendation 451
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNorthwest AustIn Municipal Util. Dist. No. One Vs. Holder
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-22-2009
v new 243 u s 332 1917 congress reauthorized the act in 1970 for 5 years 1975 for 7 years and enforcement statutes in the 1950s and 1960s depended on individual lawsuits filed by the department of justice but litigation is slow example 2 and 4 a seek to implement the fifteenth amendment s substantive command by creating a private cause of action the district or in the alternative that 5 of the act as applied to the district is an unconstitutional overextension of univ of ala v garrett 531 u s 356 368 2001 as a result for 5 to withstand renewed constitutional scrutiny the same attorney a former lawyer in the voting rights section of the department of justice see hebert an assessment of 3 how 212 223 1845 see also texas v white 7 wall 700 725 726 1869 distinctions can be justified in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCone Vs. Bell
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-28-2009
petition filed after the enactment of the post conviction procedure act even if the conviction occurred long before footnote 4 after jeopardy see tenn const art i 10 ex post facto laws 11 indictment 14 and open courts 17 the shelby county see app 13 18 the state did not oppose the amendment of cone s petition on the ground that it was contradicted that testimony with significant evidence that cone did not act like someone who was out of his mind during the v faulkner 2001 wl 378540 tenn crim app sept 10 2001 73 year sentence for first degree murder and in both to support the judgment coleman v thompson 501 u s 722 729 1991 lee v kemna 534 u s 362 375
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVermont Vs. Brillon
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-09-2009
the criminal justice system assigned counsel just as retained counsel act on behalf of their clients and delays sought by counsel the judgment of the vermont supreme court ii the sixth amendment guarantees that i n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall the criminal justice system assigned counsel just as retained counsel act on behalf of their clients and delays sought by counsel him brillon fired his first attorney who served from july 2001 to february 2002 his third lawyer who served from march against the defendant coleman v thompson 501 u s 722 753 the same principle applies whether counsel is privately retained or
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTHorne Vs. Flores
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-2009
examine is the enactment of the no child left behind act ante at 25 the court concedes however that both courts i think it was a vast mistake to extend a lawsuit that applied only to nogales to the whole state but held that statutes enacted pursuant to 5 of the fourteenth amendment must provide a remedy that is congruent and proportional to intervening years the state was fulfilling its obligation under the act by other means ante at 2 emphasis added the court entered a declaratory judgment with respect to nogales and in 2001 the court extended the order to apply to the entire footnote 24 see ariz dept of ed research and evaluation section 2008 2009 october enrollment by school district and grade 1 82 4 52 87 5 34 80 6 71 97 7 66 98 8 49 94 b funding available to nogales
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAtandt; Corp. Vs. Hulteen
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-18-2009
to redress discrimination women encountered before congress overruled gilbert the act instructs employers forthwith to cease and desist from and after 2d 961 ca9 1975 for decisions under state human rights laws to the same effect see e g brooklyn union gas u s 125 1976 this court had concluded that the amendment permitted wage discrimination based on pregnancy id at 144 145 the pda as applying retroactively to recharacterize at t s acts as having been illegal when done this is not a no gender bias i enacted as an addition to the section defining terms used in title vii the pda provides the alone intentionally so in violation of this subchapter that leaves 706 e 2 without any application here it is equally unsound
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTFitzgerald Vs. Barnstable School Comm.
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-21-2009
handicapped child in violation of the education of the handicapped act eha and the due process and equal protection clauses of any rights privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action title ix and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment against the school committee and dever and 3 massachusetts state handicapped child in violation of the education of the handicapped act eha and the due process and equal protection clauses of the facts as alleged in petitioners complaint during the 2000 2001 school year the daughter of petitioners lisa and robert fitzgerald congress carefully tailored scheme smith supra at 1012 b 1 section 901 a of title ix provides no person in the south kortright central school dist 163 f 3d 749 758 759 ca2 1998 waid v merrill area public schools 91 f
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCuomo Vs. Clearing House Assn., L. L. C.
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-29-2009
contention that the riegle neal interstate banking and branching efficiency act of 1994 102 f 1 b 108 stat 2349 2350 proper to permit the states to enforce state fair lending laws against national banks occ s reasonable conclusion that 484 a under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses the tenth amendment therefore is not implicated here citation omitted second petitioner argues not declare the pre emptive scope of the national bank act but merely interpret s the term visitorial powers post at states v mead corp 533 u s 218 229 230 2001 see also e g smiley v citibank south dakota n required under normal judicial procedures 2 for purposes of this section visitorial powers include i examination of a bank ii inspection laws that do not regulate federally authorized banking activities see 7 4000 a 3 including for example criminal tax zoning and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTEntergy Corp. Vs. Riverkeeper, Inc.
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-01-2009
the facilities are subject to regulation under the clean water act 33 u s c 1251 et seq which mandates any sources 1 legislative history of the water pollution control act amendments of 1972 committee print compiled for the senate committee on the text and statutory factors applicable to parallel clean water act provisions prompts the conclusion that it was well within the civ 0314 ags 2001 wl 1505497 1 sdny nov 27 2001 in the first phase the epa adopted regulations governing certain has thought that it would not be reasonable to interpret section 316 b as requiring use of technology whose cost is epa v national crushed stone assn 449 u s 64 79 1980 the statute s steady march was toward stricter rules
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNken Vs. Holder
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-22-2009
..... has made final pp 6 7 d section 1252 f does not refer ..... act of 1996 iirira 110 stat 3009 546 which substantially amended the immigration and nationality act ..... status will change by for example marriage to an american citizen or simply ..... a transit visa in april 2001 in december 2001 he applied for asylum under ..... the continued presence of an alien lawfully deemed removable undermines the streamlined removal .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT