Supreme Court عمومي
[search 0]
أكثر
تنزيل التطبيق!
show episodes
 
The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. Hosted by a non-attorney.*
  continue reading
 
Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada’s highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court’s website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.
  continue reading
 
Artwork

1
The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

The Citizens Guide to the Supreme Court

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
شهريا+
 
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
  continue reading
 
A podcast feed for the audio of Supreme Court oral arguments and decision announcements. Short case descriptions are reproduced from Oyez.org under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This feed is not approved, managed, or affiliated with Oyez.org. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
  continue reading
 
The Queens Supreme Court podcast is the hilarious spinoff of the hit online series “The Queens Supreme Court” with Ts Madison. The premise of the weekly satirical show is to discuss pop culture and all the hot social media trends, topics and gossip THEN try them as cases, render judgements and sentence the crimes accordingly to determine the ultimate fate of each celebrity!
  continue reading
 
Artwork

1
The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast

Robaire Taylor, Chris Young, Henri Taylor

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
شهريا
 
Any listeners out there...really want entertaining basketball content? Don't want to worry about the hosts - all on the show trying to force "controversial" hot takes, all in your earbuds, yelling back and forth to win an argument? Come to The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast! Check back with the SC trio; Robaire, Chris, and Henri, Wednesdays as we discuss the latest NBA headlines, news, and transactions.
  continue reading
 
Throughout the years the Supreme Court has evolved much like the rest of the federal government. This would not be without landmark rulings, which will be the main focus of this podcast. Landmark rulings lay the groundwork for laws to be overturned or upheld and allow for the United States to work toward major goals. Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/aaron-larson2/support
  continue reading
 
Artwork
 
This study, A Christian Response to the Supreme Court Decision, exposes the foreboding Danger that this ruling will bring upon our nation if things don’t turn around very quickly. You will also be thoroughly equipped to give a loving Biblical apologetic response to 15 different accusations made against Christians regarding this issue.
  continue reading
 
The Term is a podcast from Law360 for the busy U.S. Supreme Court watcher. Give us about 15 minutes each week and we'll catch you up on all the big action at the nation's highest court, along with a list of what to watch in the coming sessions. Hosts senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City cut through a busy docket to focus on the key cases and developments everyone will be talking about.
  continue reading
 
Loading …
show series
 
MCELRATH v. GEORGIA Damian McElrath was charged with malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault -- all related to the death of his mother. A jury returned a split verdict. For the malice-murder charge, finding him “not guilty by reason of insanity” and “guilty but mentally ill” to the other counts. The Georgia Supreme Court stated that be…
  continue reading
 
(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) The appellant, a police officer, was temporarily off work because of medical problems. During a meeting with a physician-arbitrator who was to determine whether his disability was permanent, the appellant misrepresented his work activities with his former spouse’s travel agencies. The physician-arbitrator found that his di…
  continue reading
 
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark election case looking at whether Donald Trump's actions on Jan. 6 should disqualify him from appearing on Colorado's ballot. The justices scrutinized an obscure provision in the 14th Amendment at the center of this case. Amna Nawaz discussed the hearing with William Brangham and Supreme Court analyst …
  continue reading
 
Great Lakes v. Raiders Great Lakes Insurance (organized in Germany and HQ in UK) entered into a maritime insurance contract with Raiders Retreat Realty Company (HQ in PA). The contract included a provision to apply New York law. A Raiders vessel had an incident in Florida, Raiders then filed a claim. Great Lakes filed for declaratory judgment in a …
  continue reading
 
Appellant Daniel Hodgson was charged with second-degree murder following a death at a house party. The victim, a large man, had become aggressive towards the house owner and refused to leave. Mr. Hodgson, who had been sleeping in a nearby bedroom, was asked by a guest to help remove the victim from the house. The victim died after Mr. Hodgson appli…
  continue reading
 
(Publication ban in case) In the Court Martial, a military judge acquitted the respondent, Private D.T. Vu, of sexual assault under s. 130 of the National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5 (“NDA”), that is to say, s. 271 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. It is alleged that the respondent performed a sex act on the complainant who was incap…
  continue reading
 
After a trial in the Court of Québec, the appellant, Yves Caleb Jr. Charles, was convicted of assault with a weapon, using an imitation firearm in the commission of assault, and uttering threats. During the trial, a prosecution witness refused to cooperate, and the trial judge allowed the prosecution to introduce an out of court statement made by t…
  continue reading
 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT RURAL HOUSING SERVICE v. KIRTZ Reginald Kirtz obtained a loan from the Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service. According to Kirtz, the USDA later told one of the major credit agencies (TransUnion) that Kirtz was behind on his payments. Kirtz says this was false and these false s…
  continue reading
 
TREVOR MURRAY, PETITIONER v. UBS SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL. As part of Trevor Murray's job at UBS, he had to file reports to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). In these reports, he had to certify that the reports reflected his personal and independent views. Despite physical separation from the rest of the unit, Murray claimed that he was recei…
  continue reading
 
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most consequential election cases in the nation's history. Does the Civil War-era insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment disqualify Donald Trump from holding higher office? The court will hear a case out of Colorado, where its state Supreme Court ruled Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot. W…
  continue reading
 
This week, the Supreme Court sided with federal agents to remove razor wire put in place by Texas along the Rio Grande. The state is using wire and state agents to block Border Patrol from accessing a section of the border in Eagle Pass. Homeland Security is demanding access to the area by Friday, but Gov. Greg Abbott is doubling down. Laura Barrón…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★بقلم Austin Songer
  continue reading
 
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.…
  continue reading
 
A case in which the Court will decide whether a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.
  continue reading
 
This week's episode covers Trump v. Anderson, which asks whether Colorado can prevent Donald Trump from being on the Presidential ballot due to the 14th Amendment. Considering how insane this case is, your boys discuss the lower decision to determine how the Supreme Court will likely reverse this, while discussing history, January 6th, and Colorado…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether the appropriate remedy for the constitutional uniformity violation found by this court in Siegel v. Fitzgerald is to require the United States Trustee to grant retrospective refunds of the increased fees paid by debtors in U.S. Trustee districts during the period of disuniformity, or is instead either to deem sufficient the prospe…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislation. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★بقلم Austin Songer
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are moot given that he was removed from the No Fly List in 2016 and the government provided a sworn declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
  continue reading
 
Issue(s): Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information, such that an immigration court must enter a removal …
  continue reading
 
A case in which the Court will decide whether a monetary exaction imposed by a local government as a condition for a building permit is exempt from the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements established in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard, simply because the exaction is authorized by local legislation.…
  continue reading
 
Loading …

دليل مرجعي سريع