Badgerow v. Walters
Rules and maxims of statutory interpretation dictate that when congress omits language from one section of the statute while including it elsewhere the Court must find that choice as intentional.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Houston Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson
A plaintiff pursuing a claim for First Amendment retaliation must show that the government took an adverse action in response to speech it would not have taken absent a retaliatory motive.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Houston Community College System v. Wilson
鈥淚n this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers鈥攁nd to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Ramirez v. Collier
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 states that the state cannot impose substantial burden on the exercise of religion to people in state institutions unless the government proves the burden 鈥(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.鈥 2 U. S. C. 搂2000cc鈥1(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
SAIF v. Ward
Under former ORS 656.005(30) (2019), a 鈥渨orker鈥 is 鈥渁ny person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a renumeration, subject to the direction and control of an employer.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
FBI v. Fazaga
The District Court dismissed Respondent's claims but the Ninth Circuit reversed saying 搂1806(f) displaced the state secrets privilege. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the holding saying 搂1806(f) does not have that effect.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Cameron v. EMW Women鈥檚 Surgical Center, P. S. C.
When deciding the timeliness of a third party鈥檚 motion to intervene, the most important consideration for courts is whether the party sought to intervene 鈥渁s soon as it became clear鈥 that its interests 鈥渨ould no longer be protected鈥 by the parties in the case. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385, 394 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Zubaydah
The state secrets privilege bars the disclosure of information upon the Government鈥檚 showing that disclosure would have a 鈥渞easonable probability鈥 to harm national security. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 6鈥7, 11 (1953).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure