Lincoln appeared before the Illinois Supreme Court in 175 cases, in 51 as sole counsel, of which 31 were decided in his favor.

Access Now v. Southwest Airlines was a case where the District Court decided that the website of Southwest Airlines was not in violation of the Americans with Disability Act because the ADA is concerned with things with a physical existence and thus cannot be applied to cyberspace.

Polish Constitutional Court however, in September 2008, decided that the regulations were unconstitutional and dismissed them.

One of the earliest lawsuits to establish that citizens may sue for environmental and aesthetic harms was Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, decided in 1965 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March 1987 a dispute concerning oil drilling rights, almost led to war between the countries with Greece advocating the dispute to be decided by the International Court of Justice.

Europe meanwhile decided to reap the benefits of its post – Cold War peace dividend and instead supported the development of international law, for example through the International Criminal Court.

In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Clark v. Arizona upheld Arizona's limitations on the insanity defense.

In Beacon Theaters v. Westover,, the US Supreme Court discussed the right to a jury, holding that when both equitable and legal claims are brought, the right to a jury trial still exists for the legal claim, which would be decided by a jury before the judge ruled on the equitable claim.

In 1954, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that segregated schools violate the Constitution.

On March 7, 2003, the war tribunal Special Court for Sierra Leone ( SCSL ) decided to summon Charles Taylor and charge him with war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they kept this decision and this charge secret until June that year.

In June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided that there may have been a miscarriage of justice and referred Megrahi's case back to Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh for a second appeal.

* 1963 – The U. S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland is decided.

In short, the constitutional issue on which Marbury v. Madison was decided was whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

In the 1950s, as a consequence of the 1948 Supreme Court verdict, the studio saw little value in its library, and decided to sell off its back catalog.

It was in relation to the latter that, in November 2008, the United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati decided that a case over sexual abuse by Catholic priests could proceed, provided the plaintiffs could prove that the bishops accused of negligent supervision were acting as employees or agents of the Holy See and were following official Holy See policy.

In order not to let the routine administration take over the running of the empire, the Qing emperors made sure that all important matters were decided in the " Inner Court ," which was dominated by the imperial family and Manchu nobility and which was located in the northern part of the Forbidden City.

The Supreme Court has not decided, however, whether states can provide vouchers for secular schools only, excluding sectarian schools.

On October 28, 2011, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands decided that the legally forced end of squatting can only occur after an intervention of a judge.

As the UN grounds for the effective execution of international law ( such as International Court of Justice ) and UN represents international character for a state after World War II ( such as United Nations General Assembly and United Nations Security Council ), consequently, a majority of the aligned countries during Cold War in the Western world camp decided to terminate official diplomatic relations to ROC and recognize People's Republic of China instead.

William Marbury took the matter to the Supreme Court, where the famous Marbury was decided.

In Mills v. Duryee,, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the merits of a case, as settled by courts of one state, must be recognized by the courts of other states ; state courts may not reopen cases which have been conclusively decided by the courts of another state.

In that case, the Court held that challenges to a state's republican character are non-justiciable political questions, and that the decision of whether a state is " republican " in conformance with the guarantee clause may be decided only by Congress.

The Supreme Court had decided to take up the case, overriding the Court of Appeals, but before they could hear the case, the extended period granted by Congress had been exhausted without the necessary number of States, thus mooting the case.

The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California,.

However, the General Court at Boston ordered the purchasers of Shawomet to appear before them to answer the sachems' claim.

Under Federal Court Rules, Rules 466, and Rule 467 a person who is accused of Contempt needs to be first served with a contempt order and then appear in court to answer the charges.

In its answer to this last question, the Supreme Court formalizes the notion of judicial review.

Philip, again acting as John's liege lord, summoned his vassal to appear before the Court of the Twelve Peers of France, to answer for the murder of Arthur of Brittany.

The case was heard in the High Court in London in July 2005 ; some embarrassment was caused to Byers when he admitted that an answer he had given to a House of Commons Select Committee was inaccurate, but on 14 October 2005 the judge found that there was no evidence that Byers had committed the tort of misfeasance in public office.

He was summoned again before the Court in July to answer for " erroneous " and " dangerous opinions ", and the Court declared that he should be removed from his church position.

He was conspicuous in the Whiskey Insurrection and having been prominent in some of the meetings of the insurgents, his arrest was ordered but in the meantime before any action could be taken he appeared November 6, 1794, before Thomas McKean, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and in the presence of William Bradford, Attorney General of the United States, voluntarily entered into recognizance to the United States for his appearance before the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States at the next special session of the Circuit Court held for the district of Pennsylvania " then and there to answer such charges of treasonable and seditious practices and such other matters of misdemeanor as shall be alleged against him in behalf of the United States and that he will not depart that court without license.

Accordingly, the Court had to answer whether the law regulated " commerce " that was " among the several states.

On each occasion the allegation that there had been a policy of ' recruit to dilute ' was rejected, however, at first instance the judge described the Names as the innocent victims [...] of staggering incompetence and at appeal the Court found that representations that Lloyd's had a rigorous auditing system were false ( 376 of the judgment: [...] the answer to the question [...] whether there was in existence a rigorous system of auditing which involved the making of a reasonable estimate of outstanding liabilities, including unknown and unnoted losses, is no.

The Finnish answer was mainly legislative and constitutional resistance, of which Svinhufvud became a central figure as a judge in the Court of Appeals.

" The Court decided the answer in the negative.

After that case, in which the Privy Council refused to answer the constitutional questions put to it, the High Court never certified another inter se appeal.

The village, with the help of Rebuilding Alliance, hired an Israeli attorney to petition the Israeli Supreme Court for a lifting of the Demolition Orders and for initiating a land-use plan that will answer the population's needs.

Once this answer has been submitted, any of the parties in the case may request the Court president's permission to lodge additional pleadings prior to the commencement of the oral phase.

The Famous Five or The Valiant Five were five Canadian women who asked the Supreme Court of Canada to answer the question, " Does the word ' Persons ' in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, include female persons?

It is time for him to return to the Court and he is depressed for he does not have a good answer.

All the women of the Court agree that this is a valid answer.

The Court, in law and equity is required to answer such a prayer.

First, they argued that the reference was invalid ; the question is purely a political one and thus is outside the authority of the Court to answer under section 52 of the Supreme Court Act.

Unlike almost all previous Supreme Court nominees, Harlan appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions relating to his judicial views.

Barlow, and William Banks, appeared at Chester Police Court, to answer an