Did Employment Division v. Smith and Ex parte Young both have somone acting on their behalf?
0f86b331fe7137203fc24e7154d5bad6
Employment Division v. Smith Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) , is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the "power" to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not "required" to do so.
6f429ed4a23f4099931a2782b5ea25ea
Ex parte Young Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
de7a72a8dc3da7906a4d38f1892ceb28
Cort v. Ash Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined whether a court may imply a cause of action from a criminal statute.
a88c77113c3a869812bd58b2a159e772
Sorrells v. United States Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Josephus Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest. Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since.
a985a2c452b97c1043feafa7ebab0934
Joel v Morison Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 is a case in English tort law concerning the scope of vicarious liability of an employer for the acts of his employee.
0f294447f3b815fed4776f3419d293a0
Harvester case Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the "Excise Tariff Act 1906" which contained a proviso that excise would not be payable on products if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the proviso.
2e94044602b61ac415b10a8a15d0341a
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c 17) is a UK Act of Parliament, relating to UK labour law, that establishes the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal, and sets their jurisdiction.
b430fd596ad2f0738366be578d18136e
People v. Marsden People v. Marsden is a 1970 California Supreme Court decision that held it was error for the trial court to deny a defendant's motion to relieve his court-appointed counsel without holding a hearing to allow the defendant to explain his grounds. The trial court had denied the motion based on the trial judge's own observations of the proceedings and belief that the attorney was providing effective representation. Criminal defendants in the United States have the right to appointed counsel if they cannot afford to hire an attorney under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright.
876d81288b58bd9bb7976a7a307129e4
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned whether the "section one exemption" of the Federal Arbitration Act applied to an employment contract of an employee at Circuit City Stores. The Court held that the exemption was limited to the specific listing of professions contained in the text. This decision meant that general employment contracts, like the one Adams sued under, would have to be arbitrated in accordance with the federal statute.
c4f6c7e54b5120bcf08d824ef3bc14a4
United States Department of Justice Tax Division The United States Department of Justice Tax Division is responsible for the prosecution of both civil and criminal cases arising under the Internal Revenue Code and other tax laws of the United States. The Division began operation in 1934, under United States Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings, who charged it with primary responsibility for supervising all federal litigation involving internal revenue (following an executive order from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt).
2d5ea22b3016b682304b3785b9e1d8a7
Ricci v. DeStefano Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
9f082ab295cce105257bd50962f20d6c
Camp v. United States Camp v. United States, 113 U.S. 648 (1885), was an action brought by the appellant on April 13, 1869 to recover a balance alleged to be due as compensation for collecting and delivering to the United States a large amount of cotton in bales which was captured and abandoned property within the meaning of the acts of Congress. He claimed to have performed the services in question under an arrangement or agreement with an agent of the US Treasury Department which the Secretary of the Treasury subsequently recognized as a valid contract with the government. He admits certain payments on his claim, and asks judgment for the further sum of $80,000. The court below dismissed his petition.
1c1d11f9f3476240fe2a948b6038df78
Ex p James Ex parte James (1803) 32 ER 385 is an insolvency and company law case, concerning conflicts of interest, and the absolute duty to avoid them.
9224be6a3df01cfd64cac435afacbe3c
Waite Court The Waite Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1874 to 1888, when Morrison Waite served as the seventh Chief Justice of the United States. Waite succeeded Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Waite served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Melville Fuller was nominated and confirmed as Waite's successor. The Waite Court presided over the Gilded Age and the end of the Reconstruction Era. It also played an important role in the 1876 presidential election, as five of its members served on the Electoral Commission that was created to settle the contested election. During the Waite's tenure, the jurisdiction of the federal courts was expanded by the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, which gave federal courts full jurisdiction over federal questions.
c4ccdab1fb1a2bfabb4e75c6b86a746b
Gallagher v Young Gallagher v Young [1981] 1 NZLR 734 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding relief under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 where a contract is repudiated by one of the parties.
1b120af42228fb5cc720628ef311a631
R v Smith (1900) R v Smith is an important case in South African criminal law, especially on the defence of obedience to orders. The court adopted what has since been described as "a middle course" between, on the one hand, the view "that the subordinate has a duty of blind obedience to her superior’s order", and, on the other, the view "that the fact that the subordinate obeyed an order is not a ground of justification". The court described these as the “two extreme propositions of law”, and opted for a middle course by adopting and applying the following rule: A soldier is compelled to obey an order only if the order is manifestly lawful. If it is manifestly unlawful, she may not obey it; if she does, she acts unlawfully. This test has been applied in later South African decisions. According to CR Snyman,
128a24212ae84e93f581621414db0d0b
Smith v. California Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. "Smith v. California" continued the Supreme Court precedent of ruling that questions of freedom of expression were protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. It also established that in order for one to be criminally liable for possession of obscene material, there must be proof of one’s knowledge of the material.
c316d847d3600e21a3f3938e87761cef
Smith v Land and House Property Corp Smith v Land and House Property Corporation (1884) LR 28 Ch D 7 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a statement of opinion can represent that one knows certain facts, and therefore one may have still made a misrepresentation.
a3683ab0a69dcf4c2325e714c1fe7d8f
Youngstown Sheet &amp; Tube Co. v. Sawyer Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) , also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the United States Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. It was a "stinging rebuff" to President Harry Truman.
fffdb8b5779e398dd721048eeba201fb
Attorney General of California The Attorney General of California is the State Attorney General of California. The officer's duty is to ensure that "the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced" (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.) The Attorney General carries out the responsibilities of the office through the California Department of Justice. The Department employs over 1,100 attorneys (meaning that the AG supervises the governmental equivalent of a law firm much larger than the vast majority of U.S. private law firms) and 3,700 non-attorney employees.
0a05192e0efa6349915fe69e27f1ef67
English v. General Electric Co. English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 72 (1990) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not pre-empted by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.