Sentences Generator
And
Your saved sentences

No sentences have been saved yet

212 Sentences With "concurring in"

How to use concurring in in a sentence? Find typical usage patterns (collocations)/phrases/context for "concurring in" and check conjugation/comparative form for "concurring in". Mastering all the usages of "concurring in" from sentence examples published by news publications.

type: All Declarative Interrogative Exclamative

structure: All Simple Compound Complex Compound-Complex

length: All <=10 words 10-20 words 20-30 words 30-50 words

Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
She ended up approving in part and concurring in part.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment outlining those markers.
The three Democratic commissioners approved the deal — with Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn approving in part and concurring in part.
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part from the court's decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring with the judgement, which Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined.
One of his final opinions was an opinion concurring in the 5-to-4 decision that upheld the Trump administration's Muslim travel ban.
Lynch, Justice Gorsuch took the unusual step of concurring in his own majority opinion to explain why the administrative state is in serious tension with separation of powers principles.
In their opinions concurring in the judgment in the Nixon case, Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter wrote separately to voice their concern about foreclosing the impeachment process from judicial review.
It is clear, moreover, that the three Republican–appointed justices who joined an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part agreed with the majority on the shortcomings of the lower court opinions.
" 'More heat than light' Thomas, who wrote a 20-page opinion concurring in the majority's decision yet warning that abortion could lead to eugenics, asserted in a footnote that Ginsburg's dissent "makes little sense.
Concurring in the Nixon court's judgment, Justice David Souter nonetheless suggested that an entirely arbitrary process by the Senate would raise constitutional concerns—if, for example, the Senate decided whether to convict based upon a coin toss.
For years, it has fanned, stoked and exploited the worst angels among the nativists, racists, Pharisees and angry white men, concurring in anti-immigrant measures, restricting minority voting, whipping up anti-Planned Parenthood hysteria and enabling gun nuts.
And this case was no exception, with the Court's per curiam opinion highlighting "the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security" (language quoted by Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion for three Justices concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In a separate opinion concurring in the unsigned May 16 ruling, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that in earlier briefs, the plaintiffs had indicated that they would regard only a "separate policy with a separate enrollment process" as sufficiently hands-off.
Justice Anthony Kennedy also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment which was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.Austin, 509 U.S. at 628 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
Both Supreme Court Justices Antonin ScaliaTyler Pipe Industries v. Department of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987).Itel Containers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60(1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concurring in enforcement of dormant Commerce Clause on stare decisis grounds) and Clarence ThomasUnited Haulers Assn. v.
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas joined as to part III only and filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment. Justice Stevens also filed an opinion concurring in judgment.Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. ___ (2010) (No. 08-680), p. 2.
In an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court held that civil forfeiture proceedings are "subject to the limitations of the Eight Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause."Austin, 509 U.S. at 622. Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, writing that the majority should not have decided whether in rem forfeitures always amount to a punishment of the owner.Austin, 509 U.S. at 626-27 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
Justice O'Connor noted that fact in her concurrence and did not join the opinion of the Court regarding Puerto Rico's status.Branstad, 483 U.S. at 230-31 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Justice Scalia also did not join that section of the opinion and noted that "no party before us has asserted the lack of power of Congress to require extradition from a State to a Territory."Branstad, 483 U.S. at 231 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1862-63 (Breyer, J., concurring in part).
Reed, slip op. at 6 (Kagan, J., concurring in judgment). Justice Elena Kagan also wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which she was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.Reed, slip op. at 1 (Kagan, J., concurring in judgment). Like Justice Breyer, Justice Kagan argued that it was not necessary to apply strict scrutiny to all content-based restrictions on speech.Reed, slip op.
LII: Constitution. expelling one of its members,LII: Constitution. and concurring in the proposal of Constitutional Amendments.LII: Constitution.
Among Judge Faber's most notable opinions is his separate opinion (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) in the disparate-impact liability case Hardie v. NCAA, 2017 WL 2766096 (9th Cir. 2017), discussing how classifications based only on race should be scrutinized carefully in the disparate-impact liability context.
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice David Souter, and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Byron White wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Harry Blackmun and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joined in full, and Justice John Paul Stevens joined in part. Justice Blackmun wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, which was joined in part by Justice White and Justice Blackmun.
Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, who both joined the plurality in part, also each filed opinions concurring in the Court's judgment in part and dissenting in part. Chief Justice William Rehnquist filed an opinion concurring in the Court's judgment in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justices Byron White, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, none of whom joined any part of the plurality. Justice Scalia also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, which was also joined by Rehnquist, White, and Thomas.
Justices Kennedy and Thomas wrote separate opinions concurring in judgment, but disagreeing that the residual clause of ACCA is unconstitutionally vague.
Kagan cited as significant differences between prior Commission exemptions and the instant case. She posited the Commission could have ruled differently in the two situations if they had stayed religiously neutral. Gorsuch indicated the Commission should maintain consistency among similar cases. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote another opinion, concurring in part and concurring in judgment, joined by Gorsuch.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment; he argued that Mullenix did not actually apply deadly force in this case.
The Supreme Court of the United States announced the opinion on February 22, 2017. The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the Chief Justice, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Alito characterized the per curiam decision as "grudging" and wrote that "[t]he reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self- defense".Caetano, slip op. at 9 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).
Concurring in Morse v. Frederick, he argued that the free speech rights of students in public schools are limited.Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the decision of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Justice Sotomayor also wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.Patchak, 138 S. Ct. at 913-14 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment). Like Justice Ginsburg, she believed the Act "should not be read to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction but rather to restore the Federal Government's sovereign immunity." She wrote separately to point out the relevance of Match-E-Be-Nash- She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v.
Concurring in the judgment, Justice Alito largely agreed with the Court's result but took issue with the breadth of its holding.Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1487 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment). Alito agreed with the Court that affirmative misadvice gives rise to a valid claim under Strickland, reasoning that requiring attorneys to know the limits of their own expertise is not too high a standard.Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1492-94.
Justice White, joined by Justices Harlan and Stewart, wrote separately to emphasize that there was no Sixth Amendment violation.Stovall, 388 U.S. at 303 (White, J., concurring in part).
Riley, 488 U.S. at 454-55 (O'Connor, J., > concurring in the judgment). Nevertheless, O'Connor concurred with the plurality opinion because she thought the defendant still needed to show that public use of the relevant airspace was uncommon. The Justice closed by saying flights less than in altitude "may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy."Riley, 488 U.S. at 455 (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).
Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in the judgment for herself and Justice Sotomayor.Patchak, 138 S. Ct. at 912-13 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment). In her view, the Act was best read as a retraction of the federal government's waiver of sovereign immunity. To be sure, sovereign immunity did not initially preclude Patchak's lawsuit because he sought declaratory and injunctive relief, remedies the APA permits plaintiffs to bring against the federal government.
Justice Scalia filed a one- paragraph opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment; he was the only Justice who declined to join Part II of Justice White's opinion. Justice Scalia opined that because the Connecticut pre-judgment attachment procedure was "unknown at common law," it must be evaluated in light of the balancing test for due process that the Court set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge and agreed that it failed that test.
The following is a list of Chinese films scheduled for release in 2020. All films were withdrawn and/or suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, concurring in January through April.
L. C., 527 U.S. 581, 614, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540, 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (finding that the "normal definition of discrimination" is "differential treatment").
Caetano, slip op. at 4-8 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment). After concluding that the Massachusetts stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment, Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".Caetano, slip op. at 10 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).
In his dissent in part, justice Antonio Carpio called this provision "clearly repugnant to the Constitution."Disini v. Secretary of Justice, Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Carpio, J.
Reed, slip op. at 2 (Kagan, J., concurring in judgment). Instead of applying strict scrutiny in every case, Justice Kagan claimed that strict scrutiny is only appropriate when there is a "realistic possibility that official suppression of ideas is afoot".Reed, slip op. at 3 (Kagan, J., concurring in judgment) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Likewise, she also claimed that strict scrutiny is not necessary when there is no risk that regulations will "skew the public’s debate of ideas".Reed, slip op.
Texas Department of Highways led to a 5-4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Antonin Scalia "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment." Four justices upheld Hans, while Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that Congress had assumed Hans when enacting the Jones Act and the Federal Employer's Liability Act. In the late 1990s, the Rehnquist court issued a series of decisions reinforcing state immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, starting with Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996).
"Mr. Justice Powell, with whom the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackmun join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. "I join Parts I, II-B, II-C, and III of the Court's opinion. Because neither of the courts below considered the question, I do not reach the Government's contention that the agents did not "seize" the respondent within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In my view, we may assume for present purposes that the stop did constitute a seizure.
Justice Souter, writing alone for eighteen pages, noted that “The Smith rule, in my view, may be reexamined consistently with principles of stare decisis.”Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 571 (Souter, J., concurring in part).
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He argued that though McCottry's statements were not testimonial, the Court should not "guess" at the primary motive behind the statements.
Luis, slip op. at 3 (plurality opinion). In an opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that "the Sixth Amendment prevents the Government from freezing untainted assets in order to secure a potential forfeiture".Luis, slip op. at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plurality opinion and Justice Thomas's opinion both "[create] perverse incentives and [provide] protection for defendants who spend stolen money rather than their own".Luis, slip op.
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice William J. Sullivan and Justice Joette Katz.Kelo, 268 Conn. at 144, 843 A.2d at 587 (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the disposition of the equal protection issue, but would have remanded the commerce clause issue for consideration by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Justices Brennan and Harlan, each in a separate opinion, while concurring in the court's conclusion that the tax exemptions did not violate the First Amendment, would reach this conclusion by applying different criteria from those applied by the court.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he argued that content-based discrimination should be considered a "rule of thumb, rather than as an automatic 'strict scrutiny' trigger, leading to almost certain legal condemnation".
Chief Justice Burger, concurred in the judgment saying that stare decisis called for "following the rule of Edwards in this context, but plainly the subject calls for reexamination."Jackson, 475 U.S. at 637 (Burger, C.J., concurring in the judgment).
Judge Hays filed an opinion concurring with most of the majority opinion, but dissenting as to the proper remedies for certain violations.Texas Gulf Sulphur, 401 F.2d at 869-70 (Hays, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The Ninth Circuit observed:Jewish War Veterans v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011), 1114, quoting Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) at 702 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment); DeGirolami, p. 134.
Chief Justice Roberts concurred, joined by Justice Alito in Part II.Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1050 (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part). Part I suggested that the Court was not relaxing rules for representative evidence in this case but had found that the study met the required standard of proof.Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1051 (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part). Part II expressed concern that there is no clear way to determine how much time the jury thought should be compensated for donning and doffing since it awarded a sum lower than the study suggested to ve appropriate.
To be compensated, each employee must have gone uncompensated for some of the donning and doffing time and must have worked overtime once that time was factored in.Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1051-52 (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part). However, since the jury did not report how much time they found should be compensated for the different departments, it is unclear how the district court would be able to award damages only to employees who were found by the jury found to be injured.Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1052-53 (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part).
No single opinion commanded a majority of the Court or announced any legal binding rule. Justice Brennan announced the judgment of the Court affirming the Court of Appeals, and controlled the outcome of the case and delivered an opinion joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, and joined in all but Part II-A(1) by Justice Blackmun. Justice Blackmun filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Brennan noted the Court had previously held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker v.
Judges Wildhaber, Ress, Bratza, Cabral Barreto, Greve and Maruste have filed dissenting opinions, considering that Article 8 wasn't violated. Judge Kovler has filed an opinion dissenting in part, considering that Article 5 was violated, too, and concurring in part concerning Article 8.
Stevens believed judgments should not be vacated when "the party seeking relief from judgment below caused the mootness by voluntary action,"Alvarez, 558 U.S. at 98 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). citing U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership..
The New Republic viewed the concurring justices approach as an isolationist attempt to pass the failed Bricker Amendment judicially. Cato's Supreme Court Review focused on Scalia's use of Cato's amicus brief.Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Bond v. United States: Concurring in the Judgment, 2014 Cato Sup.
Kiobel, (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment), Slip Op. at 11. The Court's concern on unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign affairs is rejected by Breyer, who notes US obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the third Geneva Convention, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and several other treaties. Ultimately, however, the concurrence agrees with the Court's judgment, as the mere corporate presence of a foreign defendant who did not directly engage in committing atrocities abroad does not invoke a national interest in denying safe harbor to a common enemy of mankind.Kiobel, (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment), Slip Op. at 16.
Black, however, thought such a violation demanded automatic reversal of Wade's conviction, and that the prosecution should not be given the chance to show that the in court identification was based on other evidence.Wade, 388 U.S. at 248-50 (Black, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
However, Breyer argued that because the statute was effectually under state law, that it should be remanded to the Second Circuit.Expressions Hair Design, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), slip op. at 3, Breyer (J.) concurring in judgement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Alito, issued a concurrence only in the judgement.
Concurring in denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens observed that the case involved "the first such appointment of an Article III judge in nearly a half century" 544 U.S. 942 (2005) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of cert) (internal quotation marks deleted). In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances". Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congress's views in the hope of guiding executive action.The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party lines; Democrats supported the resolution 48–4, and Republicans opposed it 33–0.
Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins filed a joint statement concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.Perry v. Brown, 681 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. Jun. 5, 2012) United States Supreme Court On July 30, 2012, Proponents filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Irving R. Kaufman maintained that the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and that the special circumstances of residency in prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection. Kaufman deemed the application of the Third Amendment to be "far- fetched".
Harlan, joined by Burton, concurring in part and dissenting in part, took the view that the taxable event was the grant of the options, and not their exercise, with the result that the gain to the taxpayer was to be measured as of the date of the grant of the options.
Justice White agreed that there was no Fifth Amendment violation, but criticized the Court's Sixth Amendment analysis. White feared that the rigid rule of the majority would limit more nuanced, effective, and practical solutions at the state level.Wade, 388 U.S. at 241-59 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Prudence gives rise to, among other doctrines, the prohibition against third-party standing.Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 124 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing Brandeis' discussion of the avoidance doctrine in Ashwander). As a general rule, a litigant can raise only her own claims, not those of another.
Third party standing also implicates the basic concept of a right, which includes the power of the rightholder to choose whether to exercise that right. One policy underlying the prohibition is the desire to avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication.Singleton, 428 U.S. at 124 n.3 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Secretary of Justice,, Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part by Leonen, J. where he argued that the entire concept of criminal libel, and cyberlibel, is an unconstitutional vestige of American and Spanish colonialism. He's also noted for his dissent in Republic v. Sereno, calling the majority's decision a "legal abomination".
Star Athletica, slip op. at 2 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment). To prove her point, Justice Ginsburg attached to her decision several pages of applications submitted by Varsity Brands to the Copyright Office, pointing to their claimed type of work being "2-dimensional artwork" or "fabric design (artwork)."Star Athletica, slip op.
The majority had overturned the conviction of seven individuals using the "clear and present danger" First Amendment doctrine by concluding they had advocated violent overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine, not as advocacy to action. Burton wrote an opinion concurring in the outcome, but cast his vote on narrow procedural grounds.
Frankfurter, while concurring in the judgment and apparently also agreeing with the substantive holding, expressed the view that the court should not indulge in the fiction that the new rule announced by it has always been the law and therefore those who did not avail themselves of it in the past waived their rights.
Deportation has also been used to describe these events by Presidential commissions; see President's Mediation Commission, Report on the Bisbee Deportations, 1918. The U.S. Supreme Court has also referred to forced internal removal as deportation; see United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, (1966), Harlan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, at 766.
Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred only in the judgment. While refusing to join the majority's opinion's view of "automatic statutory authority", Justice Kennedy felt federal-court jurisdiction is permitted, "in light of the status of Guantanamo Bay and the indefinite pretrial detention of detainees".Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. at 488 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
Neither were prosecuted, but Hardwick decided to file suit in federal district court claiming his constitutional right to privacy was violated.Urofsky 2013 The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where a majority ruled that sodomy laws had "ancient roots... homosexual conduct has been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization". (Burger, C.J., concurring). In Lawrence v.
The second Justice Harlan, writing for himself and Justice White, issued a two-sentence opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Harlan agreed that the First Circuit should have considered the merits of Foman's case, but he believed the question of whether Foman should have been allowed to amend her complaint was best left to the lower courts.
Justice Scalia joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, defended the Smith decision and attacked the use of legislative intent, opining that there would be no constitutional violation if “the Hialeah City Council set out resolutely to suppress the practices of Santeria, but ineptly adopted ordinances that failed to do so”.Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 558 (Scalia, J., concurring in part).
On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed Elonis's conviction in an 8-1 decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for a seven-justice majority, Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion. The finding of the circuit court was reversed and the matter remanded.
Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court, which Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Connor, and John P. Stevens joined. John P. Stevens filed a concurring opinion in the result. William J. Brennan filed and Thurgood Marshall joined an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The sea border agreement was ratified by Indonesian Parliament on April 27, 2017 while it was pending in the Committee on Foreign Relations for concurrence at the Senate of the Philippines as of July 30, 2018. On June 3, 2019, the Senate of the Philippines adopted a resolution concurring in the ratification of the border agreement.
Justice Ginsburg filed a short opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer joined her opinion. Ginsburg joined Section II of the majority opinion, agreeing that Davis had standing and that the controversy was not moot. However, Ginsburg joined Section II of Justice Stevens' dissent, and agreed that Section 319(a) and Section 319(b) of the BCRA passed constitutional muster.
The Supreme Court decided the case unanimously in favor of Connaughton. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by all members of the Court except Justice Scalia, who wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Separate concurring opinions were written by Justices White, Blackmun and Kennedy. Justice Stevens began his opinion by referencing New York Times Co. v.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a brief opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that the fact that Randolph had no idea how much the arbitration proceedings could cost her would cause the agreement to be unenforceable. The majority, in disagreeing, remanded the case back to the Eleventh Circuit with instructions to find the agreement valid under law.
She argued that it should be left to the Second Circuit to interpret and to certify the meaning of §518, which could be done on remand. The "complexity" of the case, she argues, could have been avoided had the lower courts decided to interpret the law.Expressions Hair Design, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), slip op. at 11, Sotomayor (J.) concurring in judgement.
Similar confusion was also noted in US corporate law and in academic reviews.[2013] UKSC 34, [76]-[77] In conclusion he said the following. Lady Hale gave a judgment concurring in the result, with which Lord Wilson agreed, though added a qualification to Lord Sumption's decision. Lord Mance emphasised that future possible situations where the veil could be pierced should not be foreclosed.
On issues of religion, Kennedy held to a less separationist reading of the Establishment Clause than did his colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, favoring a "Coercion Test" that he detailed in County of Allegheny v. ACLU.County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 655–667 (1989) (Kennedy, J., dissenting and concurring in part). Found at Cornell Law School website and FindLaw.com. Both.
Coakley, 573 U. S., (slip > op., at 27) Associate Justice Samuel Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, stating that the law blatantly discriminates based on viewpoint. He noted that while anti-abortion supporters criticizing the clinic may not enter the zone, clinic counselors or other employees may do so, giving them opportunities to talk to prospective clients.McCullen v.
"HUNTLEY ENDS USE OF NAME ON MEAT", The New York Times, March 31, 1964. Accessed June 5, 2015. "Mr. Huntley, concurring in the N.B.C. announcement, said that cattle fed at his farm in Stockton, N.J., would be sold in the open market and would not carry his name for promotion purposes." Huntley's last NBC News broadcast was aired on Friday, July 31, 1970.
R. Smith, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012) On February 21, 2012, Proponents petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc, which Plaintiffs opposed. The Ninth Circuit denied Proponents' petition on June 5, 2012. Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain filed a short opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, which was joined by Judges Jay Bybee and Carlos Bea.
Justice Black dissented from the holding that dismissed Wade's Fifth Amendment claim. Black asserted that being compelled to stand in a lineup is testimonial in the same sense as being called as a witness at trial.Wade, 388 U.S. at 245 (Black, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Black agreed that the absence of counsel at the lineup was a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Justice Fortas agreed that it was not a Fifth Amendment violation for Wade to stand in the lineup, but that having each person in the lineup repeat words spoken by the robber during the robbery was a violation. Fortas agreed that the absence of counsel at the lineup was a Sixth Amendment violation.Wade, 388 U.S. at 260-62 (Fortas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Justice David Souter wrote for the majority, joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the decision because he owns stock in ExxonMobil. Justice Stevens wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. His dissent advocated judicial restraint because Congress has chosen to regulate maritime tort law.
43, 48-52 (Mar. 1984)). Likewise, Justice Kennedy criticized Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion, noting that "while the plurality reads nonexistent requirements into the Act, the dissent reads a central requirement out." Referring to the inconsistencies found by the GAO investigation, Justice Kennedy wrote he could not share Justice Stevens' trust in the Corps' reasonableness.Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 782 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); c.f.
This case was decided the same day as Bartkus v. Illinois, a case with similar facts except the order of the convictions was reversed: the state conviction followed the federal conviction. The Supreme Court likewise did not find a double jeopardy violation. This case is also a rare example of the majority opinion's author writing a separate opinion concurring in his own majority opinion.
L. Rev. 243 (2006). On January 6, 2004, a three- judge district court now made up of Circuit Judge Higgenbotham, and District Judges Ward and Lee H. Rosenthal rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims, with Judge Ward concurring in part and dissenting in part. On October 18, 2004, however, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case after its new plurality decision in Vieth v.
Moreover, Justice Harlan believed that federal laws censoring "obscene" publications violated the free speech clause. Thus, he dissented from Roth v. United States,, Harlan, J., concurring in the result in No. 61, and dissenting in No. 582 in which the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a federal obscenity law. At the same time, Harlan did not believe that the Constitution prevented the states from censoring obscenity.
Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which decided that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause permitted Congress to enact such a provision. John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Breyer's opinion. Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Antonin Scalia joined in all but Part III– A–1–b.
The Court postponed ruling on whether it had jurisdiction while it considered the merits of the case. In April 1984 it handed down its 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority, with John Paul Stevens concurring in part and dissenting in part. Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent was joined by William Rehnquist, who had himself written a pointed dissent in Cone.
Justice Byron White Justice Byron White filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, but he would have separated the case into two branches, each of which was a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act: > There are two phases to the Government's case here: one, the conspiracy to > exclude the Japanese from the market, and the other, the collusive > termination of a Patent Office interference proceeding pursuant to an > agreement between Singer and Gegauf to help one another to secure as broad a > patent monopoly as possible, invalidity considerations notwithstanding. The > Court finds a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act in the totality of > Singer's conduct, and intimates no views as to either phase of the > Government's case standing alone. ... [I]n my view, either branch of the > case is sufficient to warrant relief. ...374 U.S. at 197 (White, J., > concurring in the judgment).
In Section II, Justice Roberts acknowledged the "undeniable" historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act. However, the Act "now raises serious constitutional concerns." In particular, §5, "which authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking, imposes substantial 'federalism costs,' "Lopez, supra, at 282 (quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 926 (1995)) costs which have caused Members of this Court to express serious misgivings about the constitutionality of §5.Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 358-362 (Black, J., concurring and dissenting); Allen, 393 U. S., at 586, n. 4 (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Georgia, supra, at 545 (Powell, J., dissenting); City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 209-221 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); id., at 200-206 (Powell, J., dissenting); Lopez, 525 U. S., at 293-298 (Thomas, J., dissenting); id., at 288 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996)) Judge N. Randy Smith filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. While Judge Smith agreed with the majority that Proponents have standing and that their motion to vacate judgment should be denied, he dissented from the majority's conclusion that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause.Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1097 (Slip Op. at 1) (N.
He also criticized Justice Scalia's selective reliance on only part of the dictionary definition of "waters." Justice Kennedy noted that even the Los Angeles River might fail Scalia's test.Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 769-70 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (citing B. Gumprecht, The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth 1-2 (1999); Martinez, City of Angels' Signature River Tapped for Rebirth, , Apr. 10, 2005, section 1, p.
Davis, slip op. at 1–5 (Kennedy, J., concurring). In response, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a one- paragraph concurring opinion in which he stated that Ayala's accommodations were "far sight more spacious than those in which his victims ... now rest".Davis, slip op. at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commentators have described the case as "important" and note that will likely have a "significant effect" on similar cases in the future.See, e.g.
The Court argued that, because §518 does not regulate the price that may be received by a business, as per usual price control, but rather the communication of prices, "§ 518 regulates speech." Justice Stephen Breyer issued a concurrence in the judgement, arguing that while the statute does limit speech, all human interactions limit speech as well.Expressions Hair Design, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), slip op. at 1, Breyer (J.) concurring in judgement.
Padilla may have effects on ineffectiveness claims regarding other collateral consequences. In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito lists "civil commitment, civil forfeiture, the loss of the right to vote, disqualification from public benefits, ineligibility to possess firearms, dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces, and loss of business or professional licenses" as areas where the Court's holding in Padilla may be extended.Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1488 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).
In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that students in extracurricular activities had a diminished expectation of privacy, and that the policy furthered an important interest of the school in preventing drug use among students. This rationale was based on the precedent Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), which allowed drug testing for athletes. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the Court's judgment.
US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell - Wrote the opinion of this case Bob Jones University v. Simon was decided May 15, 1974 in an 8-0 decision with majority opinion written by Lewis F. Powell, Jr., in which Justice Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, and Rehnquist joined. Justice Blackmun filed an opinion concurring in the result of the Court's decision. Justice Douglas took no part in the decision of this case.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government's use of a Social Security number for the child did not impair her family's freedom to "believe, express and exercise" their religion, and that the plaintiffs' claim was without merit. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that "never to our knowledge has the Court interpreted the First Amendment to require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development or that of his or her family", vacating an injunction entered by the District Court enjoining use of a Social Security number by the government. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice O'Connor noted, "The Government still refuses to concede that it should now provide welfare benefits to Little Bird of the Snow, even though it now claims to possess Little Bird of the Snow's Social Security number."Bowen, 476 U.S. at 725 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Concurring in the opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote to place the capital defendant's right to inform the jury of his parole ineligibility within his "right to be heard" which is a "core requirement of due process."Simmons, 512 U.S. at 174. Contrary to Justice Souter's concurrence, Justice Ginsburg believed that the defendant's right to the parole ineligibility instruction would be satisfied regardless of whether it was provided by the defense counsel or the judge.
Justice Stevens's concurrence in the judgment is different from the other two because he wishes to distinguish between different kinds of classifications. Stevens states that "[a] classification based on marital status is fundamentally different from a classification which determines who may lawfully enter into the marriage relationship."Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 403-404 (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment). In making this distinction, Stevens wishes to separate Zablocki and Loving from Califano v. Jobst.
Gabrielle M. Duvall, Recent Decisions: From Dusk Till Dawn: The D.C. Circuit's Examination of Juvenile Nocturnal Rights, 68 George Washington Law Review 710 (2000). He joined parts of a plurality opinion written by Judge Laurence Silberman that upheld the juvenile curfew under intermediate scrutiny and a vagueness challenge. Garland also joined the part of Judge Judith W. Rogers's opinion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) holding that a fundamental right to intrastate travel exists.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the Opinion of the Court, remanding the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, while Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Thomas's opinion focuses on the separation of executive and legislative powers. > Today, the Court has abandoned all pretense of enforcing a qualitative > distinction between legislative and executive power.
The Court also felt that if it declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, it would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia. Justice O'Connor concurred. Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens each wrote opinions concurring in the judgment of the court. In 2008, Washington State voters approved 58%–42% the Washington Death with Dignity Act, which established guidelines for using the services of a physician to terminate one's life.
The Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's method of lethal injection as constitutional by a vote of 7–2. No single opinion carried a majority. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a plurality opinion joined by Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito, that was later ruled to be the controlling opinion in Glossip v. Gross (2015).. Justice Alito wrote an opinion concurring with the plurality reasoning, while Justices Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Breyer wrote opinions concurring in the judgment only.
Justice Ginsburg wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Sotomayor, objecting to an analogy made in the opinion that compared the "results from" language in drug statutes to similar language found in Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. Citing her dissent in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, , she argued that the Court's interpretation of similar language (in that case, “because of”) lacked sensitivity to real-life concerns.
Chief Judge Rader and Circuit Judges Linn, Moore, and O'Malley filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Their patent-eligibility analysis focused on whether the claim, as a whole, was limited to an application of an abstract idea, or was merely a recitation of the abstract idea. They would have held Alice's system claims patent eligible because they were limited to a computer-implemented application.717 F.3d at 1292-313.
Justice Blackmun concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. He joined the plurality's preservation of Roe – of which he wrote the majority – and he, too, rejected the spousal notification law.Casey, 505 U.S. at 923–26 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). Justice Blackmun, however, argued for a woman's right to privacy and insisted, as he did in Roe, that all non-de-minimis abortion regulations were subject to strict scrutiny.
The California Supreme Court entered its decision in 1983 with the majority opinion written by Justice Broussard with Justices Bird, Mosk, Kaus and Reynoso, concurring. A separate concurring opinion was entered by Kaus. Justice Richardson issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. While the public trust doctrine protects navigable waterways like Mono Lake, the question remained whether diversions of non-navigable waters like the Mono Lake tributaries might also fall under the doctrine's scope.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in part with the majority opinion and concurring with the judgment. He agreed with Ginsburg that an actual agreement is not necessary to determine habitual residence and agreed that the habitual-residence inquiry is fact- specific. However, he argues that the decision should be grounded firmly in the text of the treaty itself and that less weight should have been given to how other countries' courts have interpreted the term "habitual residence".
Frankfurter and Clark, concurring in the judgment of the majority and in its opinion on the main issue, stated that, since the time when the employee acquired the taxable interest was not an issue either before the Tax Court or the Court of Appeals, the majority had erred in departing from the general rule whereby the Supreme Court abstains from passing on such an issue in a tax case when that issue was not raised below.
One page of the 11-page appendix to Justice Ginsburg's opinion, which highlighted that the designs were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as "2-dimensional artwork" Justice Ginsburg wrote an opinion concurring in judgement--the cheerleading uniform designs were separable-- without joining in the majority's reasoning. The copyrights were not registered for the useful articles of clothing, emphasized Ginsburg. The registrations were for pictoral and graphical works that were then reproduced on the clothing.Star Athletica, LLC v.
White often took a narrow, fact-specific view of cases before the Court and generally refused to make broad pronouncements on constitutional doctrine or adhere to a specific judicial philosophy, preferring what he viewed as a practical approach to the law. In the tradition of the New Deal, White frequently supported a broad view and expansion of governmental powers.(see New York v. United States, 488 U.S. 1041 (1992) (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).
Justice Scalia wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. While it agreed with the conclusion the Court reached, the concurrence chastises the majority opinion for ensuring "that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the President's arsenal.... That is unfortunate, because the recess appointment power is an anachronism." Scalia argues that the recess appointment power only applies to vacancies that arise while the Senate is in recess.
Three justices wrote opinions concurring in the judgment but disagreeing with parts of the reasoning. Justice Souter indicated that prior precedent on prejudice in the courtroom applied generally, including to spectators. However, due to prior decisions specifically regarding similar spectator actions and a concern about free speech, Souter didn't find the trial judge had acted unreasonably in permitting the buttons. Justice Stevens embraced much of Souter's opinion, but disagreed that the First Amendment would trump concerns about prejudice.
The case was largely viewed as a loss for network neutrality supporters and a victory for the cable broadband industry. Of the three orders that make up the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, two were vacated (no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination) and one was upheld (transparency). Judge David S. Tatel wrote the opinion with Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers joining. Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote a separate decision concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality decision by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion that concurred in judgement but disagreed with how the majority concluded that the FCB's duties were primarily local, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote an opinion concurring in judgement but stated that she was "skeptical that the Constitution countenances this freewheeling exercise of control over a population that the federal government has explicitly agreed to recognize as operating under a government of their own choosing, pursuant to a constitution of their own choosing".
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, that was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.BedRoc Limited, 541 U.S. at 187-89 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). Thomas agreed with the dissenting opinion that no distinction could be made between the mineral reservation in the Pittman Underground Water Act and in the Stock-Raising Homestead Act (SRHA). He, however, argued that sand and gravel are not part of the mineral reservations of both laws, disagreeing with Watt v.
Mullenix, slip op. at 1 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Because Mullenix intended only to stop Leija's car by destroying its engine, the gunshots were not "deadly force" because they were not "applied with the object of harming the body of the felon".Mullenix, slip op. at 1-2 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Justice Scalia claimed, "It does not assist analysis to refer to all use of force that happens to kill the arrestee as the application of deadly force". Additionally, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that Mullenix was not entitled to qualified immunity because "it was clearly established under the Fourth Amendment that an officer in Mullenix’s position should not have fired the shots".Mullenix, slip op. at 1 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). She argued, "It is clearly established that there must be some governmental interest that necessitates deadly force" and that in this case, "neither petitioner nor the majority can point to any possible marginal gain in shooting at the car over" other nonlethal alternatives.Mullenix, slip op.
Justice Stewart reaches a conclusion nearly identical to the Court's conclusion, but wholly rejects the Court's equal protection analysis, likening it to be the improper analysis for the denial of a right. Stewart disagrees with the majority's contention that there is a fundamental right to marry, or even an explicit right to marry at all. Rather, he grounds his analysis in the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 391-392 (Stewart, J., concurring in the judgment).
Justice Scalia, who was angered by the refusal of the plurality, as well as Justice O'Connor, to overturn Roe v. Wade, wrote a sharp opinion concurring in the judgment. In his concurrence he argued that the Court ought to have overturned Roe, rather than attempting to uphold both Roe and the laws at issue, and he attacked Justice O'Connor's justification for declining to overturn Roe. He also agreed with Blackmun's assertion that the approach of the plurality would make Roe a dead letter.
On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Elauf. In an opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Elauf did not have to explicitly request an accommodation to obtain protection from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring. Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, stating that evidence of Abercrombie's knowledge of Elauf's religious practice was sufficient grounds to rule against Abercrombie.EEOC, slip op.
Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.. In a 7-1 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a state had no right to keep fines and other money based on an invalid conviction. Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.
On 29 May 1792 the Constitutional Guard was disbanded. This measure was undertaken following a formal request from the Legislative Assembly addressed to King Louis, whose position had been weakened following the abortive flight to Varennes. He hoped, by concurring in the dissolution of his guard, to win support for several vetoes that he wished to impose. These related to measures aimed at the deportation of refractory priests and the establishment of a military camp for provincial militias near Paris.
Justice Blackmun and Justice Powell each wrote a concurring opinion; and Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall each wrote a dissent (Justice Douglas's dissent was joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall; Justices Brennan and Marshall joined each other's dissents).For Mr. Justice Blackmun's concurring opinion, see 92 S.Ct. 1635. For Mr. Justice Powell's opinion concurring in judgment, see 92 S.Ct. 1635. For Mr. Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion, in which Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall joined, see 92 S.Ct. 1643.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in an opinion concurring in the opinion and judgment of the Court, objected to the dissent's argument that the Act did not violate principles of the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty, stating that the "undeniable effects" of the Act were to "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another". Kennedy's concurrence implicitly viewed the statute as a violation of the nondelegation doctrine.
Justice Powell concurs in the judgment in a similar manner to Justice Stewart. Powell's primary concern is that the near-application of strict scrutiny and the use of the equal protection clause is too strong and interferes with the legitimate regulation of the State on marriage.For example, Powell is concerned that an inflexible application of the equal protection clause would prohibit the State from making laws on "incest, bigamy, and homosexuality", among other conditions. Zablocki, 434 U.S., at 399 (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment).
8; County of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works, Water Resources Division: 2002-2003 Hydrologic Report, Runoff, Daily Discharge, F377-R BOUQUET CANYON CREEK at Urbandale Avenue 11107860 Bouquet Creek Near Saugus, CA). Justice Kennedy also attacked, "as an empirical matter," Justice Scalia's assertion that silt cannot wash downstream.Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 775 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (citing Fountain, Unloved, But Not Unbuilt, , June 5, 2005, section 4, p. 3, col. 1; DePalma, Rebuilding a River Upstate, For the Love of a Tiny Mussel, , Apr.
Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concurred in the judgment only. Refusing to endorse the approach used in the majority opinion, Blackmun wrote, “I continue to believe that Smith was wrongly decided”. Blackmun goes on, citing an amicus curiae brief by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to observe that had this case presented “a law that sincerely pursued the goal of protecting animals from cruel treatment”, the result may have been different.Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 580 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).
A majority opinion in countries which use the common law system becomes part of the body of case law. Such decisions can usually be cited as precedent by later courts. In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered sections. This allows judges who write an opinion "concurring in part" or "dissenting in part" to easily identify which parts they join with the majority, and which sections they do not.
Writing for the majority, La Forest J found an award of punitive damages on behalf of Norberg, but stops short of recognizing a fiduciary duty. The majority does not believe that sex is a power that can be transferred. Even though the majority discusses consent and its vitiation, they still treat the facts as an exchange between two parties. Concurring in the result, McLachlin J (as she then was) characterized the duty differently: :The relationship of physician and patient can be conceptualized in a variety of ways.
Secretary of Justice, Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part by Leonen, J. While motions for reconsideration were immediately filed by numerous petitioners, including the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, they were all rejected on April 22, 2014. However, justice Arturo Brion, who originally wrote a separate concurring opinion, changed his vote to dissent after reconsidering whether it was just to impose higher penalties for cyberlibel than for regular libel.Disini v. Secretary of Justice (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration), Dissent by Brion, J.
Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), slip op. at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment) Because the Copyright Act of 1976 provided copyright claimants "the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise," the claimant of a pictorial, graphical, or sculptural work's copyright could restrict others from reproducing the work's elements on their separate useful articles. According to her, there was no need for the court to address the separability analysis issue at all.
Justice Kennedy Justice Kennedy wrote an opinion concurring in part, joined as to parts I and II by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.Id. at 2799–2809. In Part One of Kennedy's concurrence, he raises his concern for the separation of powers; specifically, how one branch can control all the elements of a case, including avenues of review and appeal. Part Two describes the differences between the procedures of the military commissions and the procedures prescribed by the UCMJ (fewer jury members, different rules of evidence, etc.).
Harlan addressed whether the materials had been rendered obscene by the way in which they were advertised. Section 1461 said that advertising could render materials obscene, and Chief Justice Earl Warren (concurring in Roth) had agreed on constitutional grounds. But Harlan, writing for the majority, concluded that the government had not argued that the advertising made the materials obscene. Section 1461, Harlan noted, did not require scienter, and to impose the requirement that publisher investigate every advertiser in their pages would impose an unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech.
Two Justices, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor authored brief opinions "concurring in the judgment," meaning that they agreed with the outcome of the case but not with the reasoning of the majority. Justices Byron R. White and Harry Blackmun joined O'Connor's concurrence. Justice Stevens began his opinion by stating that "[w]henever there is some uncertainty about the meaning of a statute, it is prudent to examine its legislative history." Here, the legislative history of Section 158(d) contained no indication that this statute was intended to supersede Sections 1291 or 1292.
Justice Thomas did not join this opinion; in a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, he once again declared that he would reach the same incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Gorsuch took an in-between position. He joined the opinion of the Court, but wrote a short concurrence acknowledging that the Privileges or Immunities Clause might be the better vehicle for incorporation—but ultimately deciding that nothing in the case itself turned on the question of which clause is the source of the incorporation.Timbs v.
Justice Breyer concurring in part and dissenting in part. Although Justice Breyer agrees with the Court concerning the use of a cost–benefit analysis in determining environmental standards for water-intake systems, he also admonished the EPA for changing its stance on granting variances. Justice Breyer would have remanded the case to allow the EPA to explain the reasoning behind the change. In siding with the majority in Entergy, Justice Breyer acknowledges that Congress had a reason to limit the weight of cost–benefit analysis for the following reasons.
The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case.. Justice Kennedy pointed out that all searches, by definition, would uncover evidence of crime, and this says nothing about the "special needs" the search might serve. In this case, however, Kennedy agreed that "while the policy may well have served legitimate needs unrelated to law enforcement, it had as well a penal character with a far greater connection to law enforcement than other searches sustained under our special needs rationale."Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 88-89 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment).
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, arguing that District 12 was constitutional. Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case, which was argued before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court. When the state redrew the maps from the District Order, they did not use any racial profiling data, but did rely heavily on partisan distributions. The subsequent map has been challenged again, and the case was heard by the Supreme Court as Rucho v.
Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan, concurring in the result, but pointed out that sustaining classifications in welfare legislation that are "arbitrary," so long as they are not "wholly irrational" would be inconsistent with the settled principle that the "standard by which [welfare] legislation . . . must be judged 'is not a toothless one,'" citing Mathews v. de Castro. Therefore, they did not understand the Court to imply that welfare legislation not involving a fundamental interest or suspect classification is subject to a lesser standard of review than the traditional rational basis test.
He nevertheless agreed with the majority's conclusion that the "race-based" classification was unconstitutional. This was in part because it was the state of Hawaii, rather than Native Hawaiians, who created the problematic classification. Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001): The Hicks Court held that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over state officials who act on a reservation to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.. Justice Souter, concurring in the judgment, cited Santa Clara to illustrate a tension in the Court's Indian law jurisprudence on the role of tribal courts.
Justice Brennan argued that the Constitution cannot be interpreted "to tolerate the imposition by government upon the rest of us of white suburbia's preference in patterns of family living."Moore, 431 U.S. at 508 (Brennan, J., concurring). Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he argued that the "critical question presented by this case is whether East Cleveland's housing ordinance is a permissible restriction on appellant's right to use her own property as she sees fit".Moore, 431 U.S. at 513 (Stevens, J., concurring).
January 21, 2011. Winkler has also written extensively on the political speech rights of corporations, work that has also been cited by the Supreme Court.Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n, 558 U.S. 310, 433 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). He is also known for his empirical scholarship on constitutional law issues, including a much-citedWinkler's article has been cited over 300 times by works in numerous prestigious journals, including Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, and Stanford Law Review to name a few.
Four opinions were filed in the case. In addition to Justice White's majority opinion, Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Thomas, in particular, expressed a concern that the strict review of policies that divided students by race should not be used against historically black universities in the state. Justice Scalia filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, expressing his disagreement with the burden that the Court imposed on universities and his concern that the standards set forth by the Court would create confusion and lead to more litigation.
Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote his own opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part. His opinion is in general agreement with the majority that the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 "impermissibly subjects broadband providers to treatment as common carriers." Of significance in this minority opinion is Silberman's ruling that the FCC has the authority to take "measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment." This has been interpreted to mean that the FCC has the authority to challenge state laws restricting municipal broadband.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in the Court's judgment but not in the majority opinion. In Thomas's view, it was not possible to reconcile the holding of this case, that the same standard should be used in making discretionary attorneys'-fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants in copyright cases, with the Court's previous construction of the same statutory language in the Title VII context. However, Thomas agreed with the outcome of this case because he believed the Court's previous Title VII decision was incorrect and should be overruled.
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a dissenting opinion, largely concurring in the Court's method of analyzing the jurisdictional issue, but disagreeing with the ultimate result. Brennan agreed that International Shoe required a determination whether the defendants had at least minimum contacts sufficient to subject them to jurisdiction in Delaware. However, he would have held that defendants did have such contacts because the directors voluntarily associated themselves with Delaware by becoming directors of a Delaware corporation. Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate in the decision of the case.
Conservative leader and Prime Minister at the time of the allegations Stephen Harper denied that the party bribed Cadman.Harper denies bribe offered to MP Cadman from CBC News As of February 2008, the allegations have not been proven. After this vote, the Conservatives admitted their defeat and backed away from their pledge to bring down the government. On June 14, a series of 16 votes were held pertaining to the budget: one for concurring in the committee report for Bill C-43 and dozens of amendments and other motions.
Justice White wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. White wrote that in his view, an ordinance banning picketing of a single residence "would not be unconstitutional on its face [and therefore, free of conflict with the First Amendment.]"Frisby, 487 U.S. at 488-89 (White, J., concurring). Acknowledging the loosely worded ordinance, White opposed the potential condition of the legislation, which, if interpreted as such, would place a limitation on picketing in front of any residence where passers-by or anyone else would receive a message from a protest.
In a 7–1 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that it did have jurisdiction to review the case and held that Foster did indeed show significant purposeful racial discrimination in the jury selection. Justice Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment to describe the state law on the matter, while Justice Thomas dissented. Both Justice Alito's concurrence and Justice Thomas's dissent pointed out that, under Georgia state law, Foster's murder conviction and death sentence may not be nullified by the decision.See Foster, slip op.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the court's opinion, in which Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson joined. Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez filed a separate decision concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Ninth Circuit reached that decision by applying the ancillary restraints doctrine, which provided an exception from the rule of reason whenever a restraint on trade was not ancillary to the main purpose of an agreement. The court did not believe the oil companies had explained why the unified pricing for their two brands of gasoline was necessary to further the legitimate goals of the joint venture, and so reversed summary judgment.
Reasoning that lacking money is not an acceptable reason to restrict a person's liberty, he concludes that the traditions of the United States forbid such a restriction, and that the proper justification for holding the law to be unconstitutional is substantive due process.Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 394-395 (Stewart, J., concurring in the judgment). For the root of this kind of analysis, see Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (finding that protected practices are "principle[s] of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.").
Justice Kennedy spent the rest of his concurring opinion explaining why the eight other justices were wrong. He characterized Justice Scalia's opinion as "inconsistent with the Act's text, structure, and purpose" and noted that what Justice Scalia called "wet fields" were, in fact, sensitive habitats that provide essential ecosystem services.Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 777 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (citing OTA 43, 48-52; R. Tiner, In Search of Swampland: A Wetland Sourcebook and Field Guide 93-95 (2d ed. 2005); Whitmire & Hamilton, Rapid Removal of Nitrate and Sulfate in Freshwater Wetland Sediments, 34 2062 (2005)).
Although the majority opinion makes virtually no reference to Bradwell's sex and does not decide the case on the basis of her being a woman, three justices found her sex critical. Justice Bradley's opinion concurring in the Court's judgment posits that “[t]he natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life... The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.” 83 U. S. 130, 142.
The two justices concluded, however, that, if the warning was revised, an adverse inference from the late disclosure of an alibi would constitute a justifiable limitation on the right to remain silent. Yacoob J, although concurring in the result, took a somewhat different approach. He rejected the distinction between trial and pre-trial silence and held that section 35(1)(a) and section 35(3)(h) “represent a continuum.”Para 104. He identified the purpose of the right to silence as being to “ensure that people are protected from self-incrimination in the process of police interrogation.”Para 105.
This means, according to Justice Stevens, tribal sovereignty over members is, in some ways, greater than a state's power over its citizens. Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000): In this case, the majority struck down a Hawaii state law that restricted voting in elections for Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to those with a specific degree of Native Hawaiian ancestry, for being an unconstitutional race-based classification.. Justice Breyer, concurring in the judgment, cited Santa Clara to illustrate the principle that tribes possess broad authority to define their membership.Rice, 528 U.S. at 527.
Justice Whittaker, joined by Justice Black and Justice Douglas, wrote an opinion concurring in the dismissal of the indictment against James, but dissenting from the overruling of Wilcox. Justice Black raised a Federalism argument, arguing that this ruling constituted a preemption of state criminal jurisdiction. Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Frankfurter, wrote an opinion concurring with the overruling of Wilcox, but contending that James should have been set for a new trial, rather than set free of criminal liability. Justice Clark wrote a brief concurrence, also agreeing with the overruling of Wilcox, but stating that James' conviction should also have been upheld.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that the ordinance was unconstitutional, but he based his conclusion upon the theory that the ordinance intruded too far upon the Moore's ability to use her property "as she sees fit."Moore, 431 U.S. at 520 (Stevens, J., concurring). Scholars have recognized Moore as one of several Supreme Court decisions that established "a constitutional right to family integrity."Kevin B. Frankel, The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Right to Family Integrity Applied to Custody Cases Involving Extended Family Members, 40 301, 311 (2007).
Volume IX (Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 74–76. When the new parliamentary session began on 6 October Fitzwilliam moved an amendment (drafted by Burke) to the address criticising Lord Malmesbury peace mission to France, the only person to do so. This near universal support was due "not from Opposition concurring in the measures of Government but from Government abandoning their own measures of to adopt those of Opposition—the regular order of things seems subverted". It was futile to desire peace with "a species of power, with whose very existence all fair and equitable accommodation is incompatible".
Justice Stevens, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The certiorari petition presented three questions, corresponding to petitioners' three major challenges to the trial court's injunction.[1] The Court correctly and unequivocally rejects petitioners' argument that the injunction is a "content-based restriction on free speech," ante, at 762-764, as well as their challenge to the injunction on the basis that it applies to persons acting "in concert" with them, ante, at 775-776. I therefore join Parts II and IV of the Court's opinion, which properly dispose of the first and third questions presented.
On September 24, 1992, the committee voted (32 votes in favour, one vote against, one abstention) to approve the impeachment petition and recommend that the full Chamber of Deputies accept the charges of impeachment. Under the Constitution of Brazil, the impeachment process required two thirds of the Chamber of Deputies to vote to allow the charges of impeachment to be escalated to the Senate. On September 29, 1992, Collor was impeached by the Chamber of Deputies, with more than two thirds of its members concurring. In the decisive roll call vote, 441 deputies voted for and 38 deputies voted against the admission of the charges of impeachment.
Ullman, 367 U.S. at 497,509 (1961) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (until the true dispute regarding large scale birth-control clinics becomes ripe, "this Court may not be compelled to exercise its most delicate power of constitutional adjudication"). The Court's characterization of judicial review of legislative acts as a "delica[te]" function, "particularly in view of possible consequences for others stemming also from constitutional roots," fundamentally justifies the general avoidance doctrine.Rescue Army, 331 U.S. at 571. The Court has only discussed the six justifications in terms referring to the general policy of avoiding unnecessary decision of constitutional questions rather than in terms of the last resort rule.
Shortly after the > decision, Attorney General John Ashcroft directed the adoption of the > Emerson court's view as the policy of the Justice Department in a memo to > all ninety-three United States Attorneys in November 2001. In contrast, > legal critics of the "individualist view" repudiated the Emerson analysis on > various grounds. Judge Robert M. Parker, while concurring in the Emerson > result, labeled the majority's analysis as obiter dicta, irrelevant to the > outcome of the case (see Emerson, Spitzer 2003). Moreover, the thoroughness > of the Emerson analysis was criticized because the court's rendered opinion > relied substantially on interpretations submitted in a "brief presented by > one party" (Spitzer 2003).
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents. In a unanimous decision,There were nine votes for the result, but the court split 6-3 on the reasoning. (Justices Kennedy and Scalia filed opinions concurring in the judgment; Justice Thomas joined Scalia's opinion) the court concluded that it was.
LaForest J wrote the majority, with Dickson and Gonthier JJ concurring. In the similar fashion from Dolphin Delivery, they looked at the meaning of section 32 to determine the purpose of the Charter, concluding it is a tool for checking the powers of the government over the individual. They further justified this conclusion by stating that if the scope were so widely read as to include private actions, it would impose too much a burden on the courts and would result in too much overlap with common law rules and statutes. LaForest J's attention then moved to whether the University was a government body.
Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. ___, ___ (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring). In the federal system, courts may only decide actual cases or controversies; it is not possible to request the federal courts to review a law without at least one party having legal standing to engage in a lawsuit. This principle means that courts sometimes do not exercise their power of review, even when a law is seemingly unconstitutional, for want of jurisdiction. In some state courts, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, legislation may be referred in certain circumstances by the legislature or by the executive for an advisory ruling on its constitutionality prior to its enactment (or enforcement).
A large portion of the opinion of this brief involved the opinions of those who dissent from the decision the court has made, or who disagree with it. Several justices in this case filed opinions concurring in the judgment, and for many different reasons. Several justices joined in disagreement with the court's decision to invoke an injunction on the Child Online Protection Act. They argued that Congress could not have possibly achieved its statutory objective in another, less restrictive way, that COPA did not impose a large amount of limits on free speech, and that the Act was tailored to fit a compelling interest .
The Court was not deciding what a "well-founded fear" would mean, simply that it was a lower standard than a "clear probability" of persecution. Justice Harry Blackmun commended the Courts of Appeals for their diligent work in recognizing the distinction between the two standards. "The efforts of these courts stand in stark contrast to—but, it is sad to say, alone cannot make up for—the years of seemingly purposeful blindness by the INS, which only now begins its task of developing the standard entrusted to its care." Justice Antonin Scalia stressed he was merely concurring in the judgment of the Court because he believed that it reached the right result.
Powell yielded the floor to Bayard, who then began to speak. At some point later, Powell made a motion to adjourn, but Bayard apparently had not yielded to him for that motion. When this was pointed out, Powell told Bayard to sit down so he could make the motion, assuming that Bayard would retain control of the floor if the motion failed, as it did, 4–33. The presiding officer, Samuel C. Pomeroy of Kansas, immediately called the question of concurring in the report of the conference committee and declared that the ayes had it, and Trumbull immediately moved that the Senate move on to other business, which motion was agreed to.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in part with the majority opinion and concurring with the judgment. Like Thomas, Alito agreed with Ginsburg that an actual agreement is not necessary to determine habitual residence and agreed that the habitual-residence inquiry is fact- specific. He also agreed with Thomas's opinion that the decision should be grounded in the text of the treaty and that the interpretations of the country's courts is not necessary. In addition, Alito argues that the question of "habitual residence" is not a pure question of fact and notes that the standard of review of appeal should be based on abuse of discretion, not clear error as was stated in the majority opinion.
The Court of the King's Bench, led by Lord Mansfield (with Aston and Willes JJ concurring in judgment, Sir Joseph Yates dissenting), sided with the publishers, finding that common law rights were not extinguished by the Statute of Anne. Under Mansfield's ruling, the publishers had a perpetual common law right to publish a work for which they had acquired the rights. Thus, no amount of time would cause the work to pass to the public. The ruling essentially found that some works would have a perpetual term of copyright, by holding that when the statutory rights granted by the statute expired, the publisher was still left with common law rights to the work.
In 1967, Timbers struck down the Lindbergh kidnapping law as an unconstitutional infringement of the right to trial by jury because under the statute a defendant was more likely to be sentenced to death sentence if he opted for a jury trial (rather than a bench trial or a guilty plea). In 1990, Timbers joined in a majority opinion (written by Judge Frank X. Altimari, with Judge Thomas J. Meskill concurring in part and dissenting in part) holding that the New York City Subway system could bar panhandlers. The court found that begging was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.Excerpts From Ruling On Begging in Subway, New York Times (May 11, 1990).
The judgment in Norris technically did not strike down the portion of the statute concerning paupers. However, Wayne insisted that analysis of the various views of the five Justices concurring in the judgment establishes the willingness of a majority of the Supreme Court to strike down state taxation of immigrant paupers or the shipping companies that bring them to shore. To Wayne the goal of rebuffing paupers was legitimate, but taxation was an unconstitutional means. He counseled states to examine immigrants and expel those found to be diseased, paupers, fugitives from criminal justice, or those otherwise unworthy of admission for other reasons related to the welfare of the citizens and residents of the state.
He explained: : Today's decision sanctions school officials to conduct full scale searches on a 'reasonableness' standard whose only definite content is that it is not the same test as the 'probable cause' standard found in the text of the Fourth Amendment. In adopting this unclear, unprecedented, and unnecessary departure from generally Fourth Amendment standards, the Court carves out a broad exception to standards that this Court has developed over years of considering Fourth Amendment problems. Its decision is supported neither by precedent nor even by a fair application of the 'Balancing test of power' it proclaims in this very opinion.T. L. O., 469 U.S. at 354 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored the plurality opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, holding that "within §1519's compass," a tangible object is "one used to record or preserve information." Among other things, the plurality relied upon traditional canons of statutory construction including the canons noscitur a sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps") and ejusdem generis ("general words following a list of specific words should usually be read in light of those specific words"), as well as the section's enactment as part of a statute dealing with financial fraud and its location within title 18. Associate Justice Samuel Alito filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.
Justice John Paul Stevens filed an opinion that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurring that the search violated the Fourth Amendment, but dissenting from the view that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Stevens would have denied qualified immunity to assistant principal Wilson, writing that "this is, in essence, a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 380 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). He disagreed that the "seemingly divergent views" among lower courts of appeals about T. L. O.’s application to strip searches justifies extending qualified immunity, stating that "the clarity of a well-established right should not depend on whether jurists have misread our precedents".
On that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4–3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount. On December 9, ruling in response to an emergency request by Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the recount. The Court also decided to treat Bush's application for relief as a petition for a writ of certiorari, granted that petition, requested briefing from the parties by 4 pm on December 10 and scheduled oral argument for the morning of December 11. Although opinions are rarely issued in connection with grants of certiorari (a minimum of four of the nine justices must vote in favor of the grant), Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the Court's decision, noting that "a brief response is necessary to [Justice Stevens'] dissent".
The issue put to the court was whether the requirement of Canadian citizenship for admission to the British Columbia bar is an infringement upon or denial of the equality rights guaranteed by section 15(1) of the Charter, and if so, whether it is justified under section 1. The majority of the court held that section 42 of Barristers and Solicitors Act violated section 15 and it could not be saved under section 1. The majority was written by Wilson J with Dickson CJ and L'Heureux-Dubé J concurring. In dissent, McIntyre and Lamer JJ disagreed on the point of the section 1 analysis, believing it would be upheld on the basis of "reasonable limit" and preferred to be deferential to the House of Commons.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and joined by four other Justices, stated that "a group advocating violent overthrow as abstract doctrine need not be regarded as necessarily advocating unlawful action." The court also held that "the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action." Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote a short opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by three other Justices. In his view, there is no need to decide the free speech question.
East Cleveland, "no one was more sensitive than Mr. Justice Harlan to any suggestion that his approach to the Due Process Clause would lead to judges 'roaming at large in the constitutional field'.", White, B., dissenting Under Harlan's approach, judges would be limited in the Due Process area by "respect for the teachings of history, solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society, and wise appreciation of the great roles that the doctrines of federalism and separation of powers have played in establishing and preserving American freedoms"., Harlan, J., concurring in the judgment Harlan set forth his interpretation in an often cited dissenting opinion to Poe v. Ullman,, Harlan, J., dissenting which involved a challenge to a Connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives.
Melanchthon looked upon the law as not only the correlate of the Gospel, by which its effect of salvation is prepared, but as the unchangeable order of the spiritual world which has its basis in God himself. He furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption to that of legal satisfaction. He did not draw from the vein of mysticism running through Luther's theology, but emphasized the ethical and intellectual elements. After giving up determinism and absolute predestination and ascribing to man a certain moral freedom, he tried to ascertain the share of free will in conversion, naming three causes as concurring in the work of conversion, the Word, the Spirit, and the human will, not passive, but resisting its own weakness.
Stark voted against the 2008 farm bill, which was supported by most House Democrats and over half of House Republicans, in part because of its cost.HR 2419, QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Conference Report, BILL TITLE: Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act, Office of the Clerk, United State House of Representatives (May 14, 2008). Stark voted against both readings of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which gave $700 billion to troubled investment banks in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis.HR 3997, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes, On Concurring in Senate Amendment With An Amendment, Office of the Clerk, United State House of Representatives.
In 1982, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the state's petition for a writ of certiorari, reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals and returning to them the decision on the constitutionality of Evans's sentence. This finding was made with two of the justices (William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall) entering an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part," because they accepted the argument of the State of Alabama on the matter in question, but held that capital punishment itself was "cruel and unusual punishment", prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. In July of that year, Evans fired his lawyers and filed a motion to dismiss all further appeals. The Court of Appeals accepted his motion on October 19, 1982.
Secretary of Justice, Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part by Leonen, J. Of note also was the Court's justification for the higher penalties given to cybercrimes, such as prisión mayor (six to twelve years in prison) for cyberlibel: > There exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed through the > use of information and communications technology and similar crimes > committed using other means. In using the technology in question, the > offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims > or cause greater harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for > higher penalties for cybercrimes. The Court's ruling also puts the burden of proof for whether or not there was malice on the defendant rather than the petitioner, even if the petitioner is a public figure.
SEC, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016), rehearing denied, 868 F.3d 1021, rev’d, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). The Supreme Court granted certiorari on Lucia and agreed with the Tenth Circuit’s holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative-law judges were “inferior officers.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc), aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014): Judge Matheson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part from the en banc majority’s decision that reversed the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction in a challenge to a federal regulation that required employers to provide health insurance for employees that covered certain contraceptives. Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir.
With Somers alone of the ministers in England, he shared the secret of the separate articles. When the treaty came before the notice of parliament, Portland, who bore the first brunt of the attack, sought to share his responsibility with Vernon, whom he represented as cognisant of and concurring in the negotiation from the outset. Vernon cleared himself from this charge by producing with the king's leave the relevant correspondence, and, though no less responsible than Somers for the course taken at Tunbridge Wells, he was omitted from the articles of impeachment and was continued in office. He was, in fact, sole secretary during the interval, 2 May – 5 November 1700, between Jersey's resignation and the appointment of Sir Charles Hedges, and retained the seals when Hedges gave place to the Duke of Manchester on 1 January 1701–2.
The Court issued its decision on February 20, 2019, unanimously stating that the Eighth Amendment's protection from excessive fines was incorporated against the states. The opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with all but Clarence Thomas joining, stating that the Eighth Amendment is incorporated to states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ginsburg's opinion referred to the protection from excessive fines as a key right as early as the Magna Carta, and that this protection "has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties". Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment that protection from excessive fines is incorporated, but did not accept that the Due Process clause was the right constitutional reason for this but generally as part of Privileges or Immunities Clause defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court held, accordingly, that the contractor had acquired before liquidation a personal right to performance by the employer of its part of their bargain: that performance (payment by the employer) was delayed for the maintenance period, and was subject to the condition that the amount held in the retention fund could be reduced. That right was transferred by cession to the bank before liquidation.352F-G. (Joubert JA and Nestadt JA dissented from this finding.) The court held accordingly that the appeal should be upheld.352G. The court held furtherPer Olivier JA, concurring in the order proposed by Van den Heever JA. that the certificate of completion signified the coming into existence of a right to claim payment of the retention money subject to a suspensive condition, namely the repair of any defects which might manifest themselves during the retention period.357A/B-B.
Justice Stevens filed an opinion on behalf of four justices concurring in the Court's due process ruling but "bitterly dissent[ing]" from its Fourth Amendment holding. "[T]he dissenters found a clear fourth amendment violation in Hudson's malicious confiscation and destruction of Palmer's property." Stevens argued that Hudson's actions violated both the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment because "inmates must retain some 'slight residuum of privacy'" in their cells and because the Seizure Clause "protects prisoners' possessory interests even assuming the absence of any legitimate expectation of privacy." Although Stevens agreed that the need for prison security makes it legitimate for correctional officers to randomly search inmates' cells, he argued that safety concerns don't eliminate all civil rights of prisoners and that Palmer's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated in this case because the personal materials destroyed by Hudson had been found not to be dangerous.
Justice Arthur Goldberg concurred with the Court and wrote a separate opinion to emphasize his view that the Ninth Amendmentwhich states that if the Constitution enumerates certain rights but does not enumerate others it does not mean that the other rights do not existwas sufficient authority on its own to support the Court's finding of a fundamental constitutional right to marital privacy. Justice John Marshall Harlan II also concurred with the Court, and wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the right to privacy should be protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White concurred only in the judgment, and wrote an opinion describing how he thought Connecticut's law failed rational basis scrutiny, saying: "I wholly fail to see how the ban on the use of contraceptives by married couples in any way reinforces the State's ban on illicit sexual relationships."Griswold, 381 U.S. at 505 (White, J., concurring in the judgment), quoted in .
Justice Harry Blackmun, the original author of Roe, would have struck down all of the Pennsylvania abortion restrictions, continuing to apply strict scrutiny. Justices Blackmun and Stevens wrote opinions in which they approved of the plurality's preservation of Roe and rejection of the spousal notification law. They did not, however, agree with the plurality's decision to uphold the other three laws at issue. Justice Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Stevens joined the plurality's preservation of Roe and rejection of the spousal notification law, but under his interpretation of the undue burden standard ("[a] burden may be 'undue' either because the burden is too severe or because it lacks a legitimate rational justification"), he would have found the information requirements in §§ 3205(a)(2)(i)–(iii) and § 3205(a)(1)(ii), and the 24-hour waiting period in §§ 3205(a)(1)–(2) unconstitutional.Casey, 505 U.S. at 912–914, 920–22 (Stevens, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Part IV of Justice Brennan's opinion was a plurality opinion for four of the Justices, not joined by Justice Stevens. Part IV The right to privacy, which is protected by the Due Process Clause in Amendment XIV, in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as to adults, and since a state may not impose a blanket prohibition, or even a blanket requirement of parental consent, on the choice of a minor to terminate her pregnancy, the constitutionality of a blanket prohibition of the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives to minors is obviously illegal. Also, the argument that limiting exposure to advertisements of contraceptive products may discourage sexual activity has been rejected by the Court as a justification for restrictions on the freedom to choose whether to bear or beget a child. Justices White, Powell and Stevens filed opinions concurring in parts of the Court's opinion and in the judgment.
Kennedy concurred, arguing that :(1) race had been a predominant factor in drawing the lines of Georgia's 2001 state-senate redistricting map; :(2) considerations of race that would have doomed a redistricting plan under the Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment or § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 USCS § 1973) seemed to be what would save such a plan under § 5; and :(3) while the Supreme Court's decisions controlling the § 5 analysis required the court's ruling in the case at hand, the discord and inconsistency between § 2 and § 5 ought to be noted and—in a future case where this issue was properly raised—confronted. Thomas said that while he continued to adhere to the views expressed in his opinion concurring in the judgment in Holder v Hall (1994) 512 US 874—in which he had said, among other matters, that the court's expansive reading of the Voting Rights Act had involved the federal judiciary in dividing the nation into racially segregated electoral districts—he joined the court's opinion in the case at hand, because it was fully consistent with the court's § 5 precedents.
In 2008, attorney Gregorio Igartúa and others in a fourth round of litigation (Igartúa IV) attempted to bring a class action suit claiming they and other U.S. citizen-residents of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for a Representative to the U.S. House of Representatives from Puerto Rico and a right to have Representatives from Puerto Rico in that body. The 2010 United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision read in part: Lipez opened his concurrence opinion as follows: Torruella opened his Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part, as follows: In 1961, just a few years after the United Nations first ratified the ICCPR, the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, allowing United States citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for the executive offices. a bill was pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as "a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives", and permit United States citizens residing in the capitol to vote for members of the House of Representatives.District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, S. 160, 111th Cong.
Griswold v. Connecticut, when the Court held, in 1965, that criminal prohibition of contraceptive devices for married couples violated federal, judicially enforceable privacy rights. The right to contraceptives was found in what the Court called the "penumbras", or shadow edges, of certain amendments that arguably refer to certain privacy rights, such as the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression; the Third Amendment, which protects homes from being taken for use by soldiers; and the Fourth Amendment, which provides security against unreasonable searches.Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) The penumbra-based rationale of Griswold has since been discarded; the Supreme Court now uses the Due Process Clause as a basis for various unenumerated privacy rights, as John Marshall Harlan II had argued in his concurring Griswold opinion, instead of relying on the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Bill of Rights, as the majority opinion did in Griswold. Although it has never been the majority view, some have argued that the Ninth Amendment, on unenumerated rights, could be used as a source of fundamental judicially enforceable rights, including a general right to privacy, as discussed by Arthur Goldberg in concurring in Griswold.Griswold v.
Notwithstanding the firmness of his opinion regarding the right of Congress, to the complete exclusion of state prerogative, to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, and even his view that the exclusivity principle had been authoritatively established by prior precedent of the Supreme Court, Wayne criticized a parallel discussion of Justice McLean and announced that he and the other Justices concurring in the judgment "do not think it necessary in these cases to reaffirm,... what this Court has long since decided, that the constitutional power to regulate 'commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with the Indian tribes,' is exclusively vested in Congress and that no part of it can be exercised by a state."48 U.S. at 411. He reasoned that even those who take the position that the states have the right to regulate foreign and interstate commerce in the absence of federal regulation readily admit that when the federal government actively regulates some aspect of foreign or interstate commerce, the states are prohibited by the Supremacy ClauseThe second clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. from enacting or enforcing any law inconsistent with the federal law.

No results under this filter, show 212 sentences.

Copyright © 2024 RandomSentenceGen.com All rights reserved.