Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An appellate court that has reviewed or possesses authority to review the case at issue.
A reference to material previously stated in the same document or opinion.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
An appellate court that has reviewed or possesses authority to review the case at issue.
Ava Adebayo, a public official, obtains a large verdict against a newspaper in state trial court. The newspaper appeals. The state supreme court affirms. The United States Supreme Court grants certiorari and reverses, exercising its authority as the court above to decide whether the First Amendment protects the publication.
A reference to material previously stated in the same document or opinion.
Adam Anderson leases a warehouse from Aurora Biotech. The lease agreement states that the landlord remains liable for any undisclosed dangerous condition until the tenant has a reasonable opportunity to discover it and take precautions. After closing, Adam discovers that Aurora Biotech actively concealed a crumbling support beam. His claim for damages proceeds because the liability stated above continues until he has had time to inspect and secure the area.
L. B. Sullivan is one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He has duties including supervision of the Police Department. He brought this civil libel action against the New York Times Company and four individual petitioners who were Alabama clergymen. The suit sought $500,000 in damages based on a full-page advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded Sullivan the full amount claimed against all petitioners. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment. The advertisement was signed by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South. It described widespread non-violent demonstrations by Southern Negro students and an unprecedented wave of terror against them. Two paragraphs formed the basis of the claim. One alleged that after students sang on the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled, truckloads of police ringed the Alabama State College Campus, and the dining hall was padlocked to starve students into submission. The other stated that Southern violators had bombed Dr. King's home, assaulted him, arrested him seven times, and charged him with perjury. The text appeared over the names of 64 persons. It was endorsed by the individual petitioners among others. Sullivan contended that the references to police referred to him in his supervisory capacity. Six Montgomery residents testified that they read the statements as referring to him. However, several statements were inaccurate. The students sang the National Anthem rather than "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." The expulsions were for a different incident. The dining hall was not padlocked. Dr. King had been arrested only four times. The bombings occurred before Sullivan's tenure with police efforts to apprehend the perpetrators. The Times published the advertisement for approximately $4800. It acted upon an order from a New York advertising agency. The agency provided a letter from A. Philip Randolph certifying authorization. The Times made no efforts to confirm its accuracy against its own news files. Sullivan served written demands for retraction on the petitioners pursuant to Alabama law. None of the individual petitioners responded as they had not authorized use of their names. The Times did not retract. It published a retraction only upon demand by Governor John Patterson after learning more facts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the separate petitions of the individual petitioners and the Times due to the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
View caseAnita Ali sues a pharmaceutical company alleging birth defects caused by a prescription drug. The district court excludes her experts' testimony. The court of appeals affirms. The Supreme Court grants review as the court above to determine the proper standard for admitting scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982. Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries. Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
View case1 common questions
When used to describe a court, 'above' identifies an appellate tribunal that has reviewed or may review the case. When used in text, 'above' simply points back to material already stated earlier in the same document.
Aisha Ahmed offers a state agency certificate into evidence during a contract dispute. The document bears a seal purporting to be that of the United States and a signature of an authorized officer. The court admits the certificate without extrinsic proof because it satisfies the requirements for self-authentication listed above.
Adrian Aguilar purchases land subject to a conservation servitude requiring annual payments for habitat maintenance. The creating instrument does not specify a termination date. The payment obligation does not terminate after a reasonable time because the rules stated in (1) and (2) above do not apply to obligations imposed pursuant to a conservation servitude.
Amelia Amari's will devises a parcel to her niece subject to a right of first refusal in her brother if the niece offers the land for sale. The terms set a reasonable price and exercise period. The preemptive provision is not treated as a restraint on alienation because it meets the conditions stated above.
…or, in any event, that it has no compelling interest until the point of viability is reached, are unpersuasive. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective…