In October 1985, the California Supreme Court rejected Rosenthal's appeal of the multimillion-dollar judgment against him for legal malpractice, and upheld conclusions of a trial court and a Court of Appeal that Rosenthal acted improperly.

These claims were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court, but the federal claims were upheld by the local federal district court and by the Sixth Circuit appeals court.

The court found that " Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

" However, five experts testified on behalf of Thomas that AIDS is not transmitted through casual contact, and the court affirmed the " solid science " ( as Mr. Huber called it ) and rejected Dr. Armentrout's argument.

In December 1868 the court rejected a motion to nullify the indictment, but the prosecution dropped the case in February 1869.

In a similar case arising from Louisiana's interposition act, Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 364 U. S. 500 ( 1960 ), the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a federal district court that rejected interposition.

The federal courts rejected their argument on grounds of procedural default, which provides that issues cannot be raised in federal court appeals unless they have first been raised in state courts.

The embassy was further rejected by the Chinese Ming court, which now became less interested in new foreign contacts.

An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.

The court rejected the argument that the treatments to which Pitcherskaia had been subjected did not constitute persecution because they had been intended to help her, not harm her, and stated " human rights laws cannot be sidestepped by simply couching actions that torture mentally or physically in benevolent terms such as ' curing ' or ' treating ' the victims.

While the patent was initially rejected by the patent office as being a purely mathematical invention, following 12 years of appeals, Pardo and Landau won a landmark court case at the CCPA ( Predecessor Court of the Federal Circuit ) overturning the Patent Office in 1983 — establishing that " something does not cease to become patentable merely because the point of novelty is in an algorithm.

The court rejected that argument, holding:

The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an employee of the state:

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Grafton Green rejected this argument, holding that the Tennessee Religious Preference clause was designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion as had been the experience in England and Scotland at the writing of the Constitution, and held:

In 1928, a US court rejected General Electric's attempt to patent it, overturning granted in 1913 to William D. Coolidge.

In Luther v. Borden,, the Court rejected the notion that the republican character of states lay within the purview of judicial review, holding that “ it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character .” In effect, the court held the clause to be non-justiciable.

Elevated by his Magister militum, Gundobad, Glycerius ’ elevation was rejected by the court at Constantinople, and he was ousted by Julius Nepos.

A separate challenge to the provisions governing obscenity, known as Nitke v. Gonzales, was rejected by a federal court in New York in 2005.

The court examined and rejected the State's argument that same-sex marriages would do harm by weakening the link between marriage and child rearing, based largely on the arguments provided by the plaintiffs.

) The court also rejected as an argument the potential lack of inter-state conformity that might result from a legal recognition of same-sex marriages in Vermont, pointing out that Vermont already allowed for certain marriage contracts not recognized by other states ( including first-cousin marriages ), and noting that such concerns had not prevented the passage of similarly unique laws allowing same-sex couples to adopt.

If the emperor rejected a court conference decision, he risked alienating his high ministers.

During these almost ten years in Altona he came into contact with a circle of aristocrats that had been rejected from the court in Copenhagen.

The delegation's complaints were rejected, and, according to several sources, Phocas himself was slapped and humiliated by prominent court officials at this time.

Those arguments are presented in written briefs and sometimes in oral argument to the court at a hearing.

A lawyer traditionally starts an oral argument to any appellate court with the words " May it please the court.

Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.

* Oral argument, in US law, a spoken presentation to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer ( or parties when representing themselves ) of the legal reasons why they should prevail

* Closing argument, in law, the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments in a court case

In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant ( or a litigant's attorney ) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions " are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law ".

Where there are several members of a court, there may be one or more judgments given ; only the ratio decidendi of the majority can constitute a binding precedent, but all may be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning may be adopted in argument.

State supreme courts normally require a courtroom for oral argument, private chambers for all justices, a conference room, offices for law clerks and other support staff, a law library, and a lobby with a window where the court clerk can accept filings and release new decisions in the form of " slip opinions " ( that is, in looseleaf format held together only by a staple ).

The court took evidence from theologian John F. Haught and ruled that " ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God.

The decision to emphasize the Copyright clause argument was based on both the minority opinion of Judge Sentelle in the appeals court, and on several recent Supreme Court decisions authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist: United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison.

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U. S. 394 ( 1886 ), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, " The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.

The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional.

Clarence Darrow ( left ) and William Jennings Bryan chat in court during the Scopes Trial.

The Scopes Trial of 1925 was a Tennessee court case that tested a state law which forbade the teaching of " any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Dennehy starred as Clarence Darrow in Alleged, a film based on the Scopes Monkey Trial, the famous court battle over the teaching of evolution in American public schools.

Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan chat in court during the Scopes trial.

The Scopes Trial of 1925 is perhaps the most famous court case of its kind.

One example of this ( from the Queen's Bench in England ) is Doyle v Olby ( Ironmongers ) Ltd 2 QB 158, the claimant appealed ( successfully ) on the basis that, although he won in the court below, the lower court had applied the wrong measure of damages and he had not been fully recompensated.

A court case allowing the União do Vegetal to import and use the tea for religious purposes in the United States, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, was heard by the U. S. Supreme Court on November 1, 2005 ; the decision, released February 21, 2006, allows the UDV to use the tea in its ceremonies pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In terms of ultra vires actions in the broad sense, a reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it is unreasonable ( under Canadian law, following the rejection of the " Patently Unreasonable " standard by the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick ), Wednesbury unreasonable ( under British law ), or arbitrary and capricious ( under U. S. Administrative Procedure Act and New York State law ).

However, the court later concluded, in R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., ( 2 S. C. R.

However, a more modern approach has since developed, and in Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing BCLC 498 the court held that the rule in Equitable Fire related only to skill, and not to diligence.

A first exception to this rule arose in an 1852 case by New York's highest court, Thomas v. Winchester, which held that mislabeling a poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put " human life in imminent danger.

In Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson, ( decided in 1915 by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states ), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from a defective wheel, when the automobile owner had a contract only with the automobile dealer and not with the manufacturer, even though there was " no question that the wheel was made of dead and ‘ dozy ‘ wood, quite insufficient for its purposes.

Finally, in the famous case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., in 1916, Judge Benjamin Cardozo for New York's highest court pulled a broader principle out of these predecessor cases.

In the 2011 court case AT & T Mobility v. Concepcion, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class action lawsuits, which will make it more difficult for consumers to file class action lawsuits.

Several U. S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including the 1900 Supreme Court decision in Paquete Habana, a late 1950s decision in Reid v. Covert, and a lower court ruling in 1986 in Garcia-Mir v. Meese.

Solicitors must be careful when looking at older cases when quantifying a claim to ensure that the award is brought up to date and to take into account the court of appeal case in Heil v Rankin Generally speaking the greater the injury the greater the damages awarded.

This was later reversed during 2002 in a landmark case before the US Supreme Court, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, in which the divided court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled the Ohio school voucher plan constitutional and removed any constitutional barriers to similar voucher plans in the future, with moderate justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O ' Connor and conservative justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority.

In Scots Law, Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh ( 1953 ) provides authority that where a witness has particular knowledge or skills in an area being examined by the court, and has been called to court in order to elaborate on that area for the benefit of the court, that witness may give evidence of his opinion on that area.

In Washington v. Alaimo the court listed more than seventy-five frivolous " motions " ( a request for a court to issue an order ), all of which required the attention of the Court, including the following:

A federal appeals court denied the plaintiffs an injunction ( Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin ) against publication on the basis that the book was parody and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

During the Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt trial it became evident that the court need to identify what was an " objective historian " in the same vein as the reasonable person, and reminiscent of the standard traditionally used in English law of " the man on the Clapham omnibus ".

However, a superior court always has the discretion to grant the writ even in the face of an alternative remedy ( see May v. Ferndale Institution ).