0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Taiga
Judy
LaoAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the Leandro Case?
A case in North Carolina with a ruling that "All children in the NC have a fundamental state constitutional right to the 'equal opportunity to receive a sound basic education"'. I.E, if a school is rich then the state doesn't have to provide them with the smae funds that they provide a lower income school.
A person agency or interest group who is not a party to a case but who has an interest in its outcome may file?
Amicus Curiae
When does the supreme court ask for a friend of the court brief?
when the Supreme court decides to hear a case, the petitioner and the respondent each prepare a written brief. In case where the outcome will affect a group, but the group is not involved in the case, a "friend of the court" brief may be requested.
What was the outcome of the case of Gideon vs Wainwright?
Gideon vs. Wainwright is a US Supreme Court Case from 1963. The vote was unanimous. This court case decided under the fourth amendment, state courts are required to provide an attorney in criminal cases when the defendant cannot afford one.
When was the last time the US Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction?
The US Supreme Court is currently (2009 Term) considering a dispute between North Carolina and South Carolina over the apportionment of water rights over the Catawba River, which flows between both states.The instant case is particularly compelling because it also raises the question of whether third-party private interests should be allowed to intervene in disputes between the states.In South Carolina v. North Carolina, which is currently before the bench, the Special Master appointed by the Court, Kristin Linsley Myles, partner in the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, recommended that Duke Energy Carolinas, the city of Charlotte, N.C., and the Catawba River Supply Project be permitted to participate as parties to the suit because they each had a compelling interest in the outcome.This decision would benefit North Carolina over South Carolina, and was appealed by South Carolina. The US Solicitor General's office supports South Carolina in the appeal. The concern Chief Justice Roberts raised is whether the intervention of third-party interests would "hijack our original jurisdiction."The options appear to be observing the rules of civil procedure (which are not binding on the Court in original jurisdiction disputes), following the "rule of permissive intervention," a question Justice Ginsburg raised (but does not appear to advocate); or the Court hearing the case de novo (as new), as argued by South Carolina's counsel. The Court appears to favor the latter approach, although no decision has been made.The most likely (although certainly not assured) outcome is that the Court will vote to hear the case de novo, rather than set a precedent of allowing private interests to become party to disputes between the states, but permit the interested parties to submit amici (friend of the court briefs).Justice Ginsburg raised a significant Constitutional point that may resolve the issue, in light of South Carolina's resistance to the intervention: A state "can't be sued without its consent. And it's true here that South Carolina is initiating the action, but it's initiating the action against a sister state. The special master's recommendation would require the state to have as its direct adversary three parties who are not a sister state, and that kind of dilutes the notion of original jurisdiction. It's a controversy between two states."
