This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Supreme Court held that a deaf student seeking compensatorydamages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.
Supreme Court held that two students had standing to sue their college for violating their free speech rights, even though their suit sought only nominal damages. Supreme Court’s Decision. By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court reversed. In Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski , 592 U.S. _ (2021), the U.S.
In its earlier summary judgment ruling , the court began with a discussion of the highly analogous case of Pickering v. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of public high school teacher Marvin Pickering, who wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing a school board’s allocation of funding for athletic programs.
Free speech has always held a precarious position in Australia which does not have an equivalent to the First Amendment in guaranteeing free speech as a constitutional right. Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech. punitive damages.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the term’s most closely-watched cases. However, in defending its controversial abortion law, the State of Mississippi has asked the Court to overturn its prior decisions in Roe v. Board of Education, in which the Court overruled precedent and established new constitutionallaw.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the term’s most closely-watched cases. However, in defending its controversial abortion law, the State of Mississippi has asked the Court to overturn its prior decisions in Roe v. Board of Education, in which the Court overruled precedent and established new constitutionallaw.
That eagerness could prove the court’s undoing, however. However, James wants dissolution and crippling damages, and that could trigger a higher-court review. Supreme Court decided a case, BMW of North America v. Gore , striking down a punitive damage award. In 1996, the U.S.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content