The chapter of the Bankruptcy Act, which provides for “liquidation”, i.e. the sale of a debtor`s unvaccinated assets and the distribution of the proceeds to creditors. To qualify for Chapter 7, the debtor must meet a “resource test.” The court assesses the debtor`s income and expenses to determine whether the debtor can proceed under Chapter 7. A party who objects to a complainant`s appeal and tries to convince the Court of Appeal to uphold the District Court`s decision. A court-approved mechanism under which two or more cases can be handled together. (Assuming there are no conflicts of interest, these separate companies or individuals can pool their resources, hire the same professionals, etc.) A report prepared by a court probation officer after a person has been convicted of a crime, which summarizes for the court the basic information needed to determine the appropriate sentence. A federal district court has permanently ordered a ban on “partial abortion at birth” in Arizona. The court found that the ban was unconstitutionally vague because it was “open to different interpretations” and therefore did not adequately warn physicians of the conduct it prohibits. The court also found that the ban imposed an “unreasonable burden” on abortion rights, as the ban would force women to move from safer to riskier procedures by banning the safest and most common abortion methods after the first trimester. The State has not appealed the District Court`s decision.
A court order that prevents one or more designated parties from taking action. An injunction is often issued to allow for the establishment of facts so that a judge can determine whether a permanent injunction is warranted. In 1999, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the Missouri ban. Missouri then went to state court to overcome constitutional flaws in the law by interpreting the ban narrowly. The proceedings of the Federal Court were suspended until the outcome of the proceedings before the regional courts. The lower state court ruled that although a health exception is not expressly included in the text of the law, such an exception can be read into the law. This decision was overturned by a state appeals court and the injunction remained in effect. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected a re-examination in the state case and the U.S.
case. In 2004, a federal court granted the plaintiffs` request for a summary verdict and ruled that the ban was unconstitutional due to a lack of health exception. In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld this decision. Despite this decision, Michigan passed a related but differently worded law in 1999. Following the Carhart decision, the District Court declared Michigan`s second ban unconstitutional because there was no “adequate exception to protect the mental and/or physical health of the pregnant woman.” The court issued a permanent injunction blocking the enforcement of the ban. The State did not appeal. A court decision in a previous case with facts and legal issues similar to a legal dispute currently being heard by a court.
Judges “generally follow precedents,” that is, they apply the principles established in previous cases to rule on new cases that have similar facts and raise similar legal issues. A judge will disregard precedents if a party can prove that the previous case was tried incorrectly or that it differed significantly from the current case in some way. Despite the Fourth Circuit`s decision, Virginia enacted a second law banning so-called “partial infanticide.” Although its wording is different, this second law suffers from the same flaws. Based on the Carhart decision, the District Court struck down the law because it did not contain an exception to protect women`s health, contained only an inadequate exception to protect their lives, and prohibited its “plain language” “Pre-Viability D&E,” thus imposing “an unacceptable unreasonable burden on the constitutional right to choose an abortion.” The Fourth Circuit upheld and denied a request for a new hearing. The Supreme Court granted the certiorari and reversed the judgment in order to reconsider it in light of the Carhart II decision. In pretrial detention, the Fourth Circuit confirmed that Virginia`s ban under Carhart II was still unconstitutional because the law “lacks the intent and clear requirements for the open actions that were at the heart of the Supreme Court`s decision.” Unlike federal law, Virginia law criminalized all “intact D&E,” even if the doctor intended to perform another legal abortion procedure.