Types of Lawsuits

Anderson v. Cryovac was a federal lawsuit concerning toxic contamination of groundwater in Woburn, Massachusetts.

That settlement, unlike the Court's ruling, ended his lawsuit against all government officials involved. Iqbal's claims against lower-level officials, including the guards and supervisors at the detention center, are unaffected by the court's ruling.

Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986) Facts: When selecting a jury, both parties may remove potential jurors using an unlimited number of challenges for cause (e.g., stated reasons such as bias) and a limited number of peremptory challenges (i.e., do not need to state a reason).

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure. Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision effectively overturned the Plessy v.

A lawsuit for a civil rights violation will be filed and handled in civil court (federal or state civil court, as discussed above). In a civil case, the person claiming a civil rights violation (the "plaintiff") files a "complaint" with the court.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. In particular, there is no temporary immunity, so it is not required to delay all federal cases until the President leaves office.

Hansberry v. Lee311 U.S. 32, 61 S. Ct. 115, 85 L. Ed. 22, 1940 U.S. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire386 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1199, 18 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1967) Holland v. Steele92 F.R.D. 58, 1981 U.S. Dist. 33 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1039; In the Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc51 F.3d 1293, 1995 U.S. App. Eisen v.

Text of Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Justia Oyez vLex This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub.

Virginia case goes far beyond the black-white love narrative begun a half century ago. In some ways, the Supreme Court triumph—the anniversary of which we now mark—did represent the simple victory of love over hate. And yet this case is also a reminder that history is often more complicated than it looks.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (/ ˈ oʊ b ər ɡ ə f ɛ l / OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 is an English case, which was heard by the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of England and ...

To understand the Seventh Amendment, we need to go back into history and the English legal system. Much of the legal system in the United States, and especially the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are based on America’s English roots. The civil jury was an old English institution, older even than the criminal jury.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.