Strategic litigation, searchable.
82 cases across 14 issue areas. Filter by topic, outcome, or precedent strength. Each profile is a starting point for adaptation, not a finishing line.
- United States (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)· 2020· Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jenny Flores v. Jeffrey Rosen, 984 F.3d 720
US court opinion from Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JENNY LISETTE FLORES, No. 19-56326 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:85-cv-04544- DMG-AGR JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General; CHAD F. WOLF; U.S.
united statesimmigration detention - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2020· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 40503/17)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to a country where they faced a real risk of torture would breach the prohibition of torture, the right to an effective remedy, and the prohibition of collective expulsion.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - United States (District Court, District of Columbia)· 2020· District Court, District of Columbia
C.G.B. v. Wolf (Civil Action No. 2020-1072)
US court opinion from District Court, District of Columbia. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C.G.B. 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 20-cv-1072 (CRC) CHAD WOLF, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, ten transgender women in the custody of I
united statesimmigration detention - United States (District Court, District of Columbia)· 2019· District Court, District of Columbia
I.A. v. Barr (Civil Action No. 2019-2530)
US court opinion from District Court, District of Columbia. LA. etal, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM BARR et al., Defendants. FILED AUG 21 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts Case: 1:19-cv—02530 Assigned To : Kelly, Ti
united statesimmigration detention - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF N.A. v. FINLAND (no. 25244/18)
Whether the applicant's expulsion from Finland to his home country would expose him to a real risk of death or torture, violating his right to life and the absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2019· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF HAGHILO v. CYPRUS (no. 47920/12)
Whether Cyprus has taken sufficient measures to prevent new violations and to comply with the Court's judgment, satisfying the right to enforcement of judgments.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2018· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA (no. 59793/17)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Belarus would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture and whether they had an effective remedy to challenge that risk.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2018· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF S.Z. v. GREECE (no. 66702/13)
Whether Greece violated the applicant's rights under the prohibition of torture and the right to liberty and security by subjecting him to degrading treatment and by detaining him without lawful basis and without an effective judicial review.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF X v. SWITZERLAND (no. 16744/14)
Whether the applicant's expulsion to Sri Lanka would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2017· European Court of Human RightsfavorableHigh precedent
CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 61411/15)
Whether the applicants' detention by the Russian authorities, aimed at preventing their unauthorised entry, violated their right to liberty and subjected them to treatment contrary to the absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA (no. 14348/15)
Whether the applicant's removal to Kyrgyzstan would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether the domestic legal framework provided him with an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF BABAJANOV v. TURKEY (no. 49867/08)
Whether expelling the applicant to Iran would expose him to a real risk of torture, and whether his detention and the information given to him breached his right to liberty and security.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN (no. 59166/12)
Whether the applicants' removal to Iraq would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY (no. 16483/12)
Whether Italy's treatment and expulsion of the applicants violated their rights to freedom and security, prohibition of torture, and protection from collective expulsion of aliens
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3article 4 prot 4 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2016· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN (no. 43611/11)
Whether the applicant's removal to Iran would conflict with Sweden's obligations under the right to life and the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF L.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 40081/14)
Whether the applicants' expulsion to Syria would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the right to life and the prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF S.J. v. BELGIUM (no. 70055/10)
Whether the applicant's expulsion to Nigeria would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether he had an effective remedy to challenge that risk.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsadverse
CASE OF TATAR v. SWITZERLAND (no. 65692/12)
Whether the applicant’s expulsion to Turkey would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the Convention’s right to life and absolute prohibition of torture.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2015· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM (no. 60125/11)
Whether Belgium violated the applicants' rights under the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and whether they had an effective remedy for that breach.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3 - Council of Europe (ECtHR)· 2014· European Court of Human Rightsfavorable
CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. POLAND (no. 28761/11)
Whether Poland’s actions regarding the applicant’s arrest, detention, rendition and exposure to the death penalty violated his rights under the Convention, particularly the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial, the right to private and family life, the right to an effective remedy and the right to life.
refugeeasylumnon-refoulementarticle 3