Us Supreme Court Court November 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nitro-lift Technologies, L. L. C. Vs. Howard
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Nitro-Lift Techs., L.L.C. v. Howard SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NITRO-LIFT TECHNOLOGIES, L. L. C. v. EDDIE LEE HOWARD et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of oklahoma No. 111377.Decided November 26, 2012 Per Curiam. State courts rather than federal courts are most frequently called upon to apply the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. 1 et seq., including the Acts national policy favoring arbitration. It is a matter of great importance, therefore, that state supreme courts adhere to a correct interpretation of the legislation. Here, the Oklahoma Supreme Court failed to do so. By declaring the noncompetition agreements in two employment contracts null and void, rather than leaving that determination to the arbitrator in the first instance, the state court ignored a basic tenet of the Acts substantive arbitration law. The decision must be vacated. *** This dispute arise...
United States Vs. Bormes
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-13-2012
United States v. Bormes NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. BORMES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 11192.Argued October 2, 2012Decided November 13, 2012 Respondent Bormes, an attorney, filed suit against the Federal Government, alleging that the electronic receipt he received when paying his clients federal-court filing fee on Pay.gov included the last four digits of his credit card number and the cards expiration date, in willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U. S. C. 1681 et seq. He sought damages under 1681n and asserted jur...
Lefemine Vs. Wideman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-05-2012
Lefemine v. Wideman SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STEVEN LEFEMINE, dba COLUMBIA CHRISTIANS FOR LIFE v. DAN WIDEMAN et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 12168.Decided November 5, 2012 Per Curiam. This case concerns the award of attorneys fees in a suit alleging unconstitutional conduct by government officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff who secured a permanent injunction but no monetary damages was not a prevailing party under 42 U. S. C. 1988, and so could not receive fees. That was error. Because the injunction ordered the defendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff, we vacate the Fourth Cir- cuits decision and remand for further proceedings. *** Petitioner Steven Lefemine and members of Columbia Christians for Life (CCL) engage in ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›