Also known as: extraordinary circumstance · exceptional circumstances
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A highly unusual set of facts that justify departing from a general legal rule or requirement.
Edgewater Capital's associate filed a pleading denying key facts without any evidentiary basis. The court issued an order to show cause and later found a Rule 11 violation. Because no facts showed that the associate acted independently outside firm oversight, the court held the firm jointly responsible for the sanction.
Empire Logistics, incorporated and headquartered in Delaware, faced suit in Montana over an accident occurring there. Plaintiffs pointed to the company's hundreds of deliveries and several terminals in the state. The court dismissed for lack of general jurisdiction because those contacts did not render the company at home in Montana.
Ewan Eckhart, a key government witness in a fraud trial, learned he would undergo emergency surgery that would prevent him from testifying at the scheduled date. The prosecution moved under Rule 15 to preserve his testimony by deposition. The court granted the motion, finding the medical emergency created the necessary conditions for taking the deposition.
Emily Ellis faced state charges for distributing leaflets at a public park. She filed a federal suit seeking to enjoin the prosecution, claiming the statute was overbroad. The federal court declined to intervene because the prosecution was brought in good faith and the statute had at least some valid applications.
Edith Eberhardt sought visitation with her grandchildren after their mother, her daughter, died. The surviving father opposed the request. The court denied visitation because Edith failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the father's decisions would harm the children.
Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel never married but had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad's parents and the paternal grandparents of the children. After Granville and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought Isabelle and Natalie to their home for weekend visitation. Brad Troxel committed suicide in May 1993. The Troxels continued to see the children on a regular basis after his death. In October 1993 Granville informed the Troxels that she wished to limit their visitation to one short visit per month. In December 1993 the Troxels filed a petition in Washington Superior Court for Skagit County under Rev. Code Wash. § 26.10.160(3) seeking visitation rights. The statute provides that any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time. The court may order visitation when it may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances. The Troxels requested two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks each summer. Granville proposed one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. In 1995 the Superior Court ordered visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both grandparents' birthdays. Granville appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that nonparents lack standing to seek visitation under the statute unless a custody action is pending. The Washington Supreme Court granted review, held that the Troxels had standing, but affirmed on the ground that the statute unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment.
View caseElise Everly, a noncustodial parent, sued a school district over the pledge of allegiance recited in her child's classroom. The court dismissed the suit because the child's custodial parent did not object to the practice and no facts showed that the recitation caused concrete injury to the child.
In 1892 a national magazine proposed that schoolchildren recite a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Congress first codified rules for the Pledge in a 1942 joint resolution and amended the text twelve years later to add the words "under God." California law requires every public elementary school to begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. The Elk Grove Unified School District satisfies the requirement by directing that each elementary class recite the Pledge once daily, while permitting students who object on religious grounds to abstain. Michael A. Newdow, an atheist whose daughter was then enrolled in kindergarten in the district, filed suit in March 2000 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against Congress, the President, the State of California, the School District, and its superintendent. The complaint sought a declaration that the 1954 amendment adding "under God" violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and an injunction against the district's daily recitation policy. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed, holding that Newdow had standing as a parent and that both the 1954 Act and the district policy violated the Establishment Clause. After that decision, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow's daughter, moved to intervene or dismiss, stating that she held sole legal custody and that the child was a Christian who had no objection to reciting or hearing the Pledge. On September 25, 2002, a California Superior Court enjoined Newdow from including his daughter as a party or suing as her next friend. The Ninth Circuit subsequently held that Newdow retained Article III standing as a noncustodial parent under California law. In February 2003 the court amended its opinion to omit any determination of standing to challenge the 1954 Act itself. At a September 2003 hearing the Superior Court announced that the parents now share joint legal custody but that Banning makes the final decisions if they disagree. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider both Newdow's standing and the First Amendment question.
View caseA court imposes joint responsibility on the firm unless facts demonstrate that the violation occurred outside normal firm supervision or the partner acted entirely on personal initiative without firm involvement.
Substantial business activity alone does not create general jurisdiction. Only facts showing the corporation is at home in the state or other truly exceptional circumstances will suffice.
A party must demonstrate that the witness cannot attend trial for reasons such as serious illness or other compelling reasons that make preserving testimony necessary in the interest of justice.
A federal court will enjoin only when the prosecution is brought in bad faith, involves harassment, or rests on a statute that is flagrantly unconstitutional with no valid applications.
A nonparent must present clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit or that extraordinary circumstances exist showing the parent's decisions would harm the child.
…to laws that expressly single out religious practices). Ante , at 884-885. The Court cites cases in which, due to various exceptional circumstances, we found strict scrutiny inapposite, to hint that the Court has repudiated that standard altogether. Ante , at 882-884. In short, it effectuates a wholesale overturning of settled law…