Discover published sets by community

Significance: Established the principle of judicial review, effectively giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Ruling: Marbury had a right to his commission, but the Court could not enforce it because the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional.

Significance: Established that a plaintiff's choice of forum is not absolute in cases involving an international element and allowed for greater leniency in applying forum non conveniens. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that a trial may be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens if there is a more appropriate venue available, even if it is in another country.

Significance: Tightened the requirements for class-action certification, particularly the commonality requirement. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart was not eligible for class certification because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a common issue among the proposed class.

Significance: Overturned the federal courts' use of federal common law when deciding state law claims, requiring them to apply state law instead. Ruling: The Court determined that, in cases not governed by federal statute or the Constitution, state law must apply.

Significance: Updated the standard for stating a claim upon which relief can be granted, requiring a plaintiff to plead enough facts to suggest that a claim is plausible. Ruling: The Supreme Court retired the 'no set of facts' standard set by Conley v. Gibson and required a more fact-pleading standard for antitrust cases.

Significance: Established the 'minimum contacts' standard for personal jurisdiction in civil procedure. Ruling: The Supreme Court held that a state may subject a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts only when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state.

Significance: Reaffirmed the enforceability of forum-selection clauses in contracts as long as they are not unreasonably burdensome to a party. Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the forum-selection clause that required disputes to be litigated in Florida, even though the plaintiffs were Washington residents.

Significance: Established the principle that a court's jurisdiction is tied to geographic boundaries and that out-of-state defendants must be served within the court's territory. Ruling: The judgment against Neff was invalid because the court in Oregon did not have personal jurisdiction over him.

Significance: Clarified the standard for when a state court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. Ruling: The Supreme Court concluded that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the states' jurisdiction over nonresident defendants and that Asahi's minimal business in California was not enough for jurisdiction.