U.S. Supreme Court 2011 Term Arguments

Oyez

5.0（9則評分）
政府

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.

2012/10/01

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum

A case in which the Court found that the Alien Tort Statute does not give ground for United States law to be applied extraterrestrially to other sovereign nations with their own laws.
2012/04/25

Arizona v. United States

A case in which the Court found that Arizona's state immigration provisions conflicted in part with federal immigration laws.
2012/04/24

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak

A case in which the Court held that a neighbor of a proposed Indian casino had standing to sue the government for taking 147 acres of a town's land under Section 465 of the Indian Reorganization Act.
2012/04/23

RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank

A case in which the Court held that a company could not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that provided for the sale of its assets free from lien without permitting a bank to credit-bid at the sale.
2012/04/18

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

A case in which the Court held that, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the government is required to pay all of the contract support costs incurred by a tribal contractor if payment of those costs would exceed the statutory cap on the appropriations available to pay them.
2012/04/17

Dorsey v. United States

A case in which the Court held that criminals who had committed drug crimes before the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 but were sentenced after its passage were entitled to the sentencing provisions laid out in the Act.
2012/04/16

Christopher v. SmithKline

A case in which the Court held that the Secretary of Labor's definition of "outside salesman" apply to pharmaceutical sales representatives under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
2012/03/28

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Cases in which the Court held that the minimum coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, that Congress had the power to enforce the taxation of most Americans that did not buy the minimum level of coverage, and that the federal government exceeded its power by pressuring States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid.

顯示全部 (73)

5

（滿分 5 顆星）

9 則評分

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.