Russian Law

russian-law is a key legal principle explored in case law.

Cases Applying This Concept

Association of Administrative Law Judges, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Afl-Cio v. Federal Service Impasses PanelCivil Action No. 2020-1026
Caryn Hines & Claudia Barber v. DC Commission on Selection & Tenure of Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings16-AA-735 & 16-AA-867
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT, and v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc., Cross-defendants and Appellants JAN FRANK, Cross-complainant and Respondent JOHN CHIANG, as Controller, etc., and195 Cal. App. 4th 119
ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Et Al., Defendants640 F. Supp. 2d 66
Association of Administrative Law Judges v. United States Office of Personnel ManagementCivil Action No. 2007-0711
ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY365 U.S. App. D.C. 6
ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Et Al., Defendants533 F. Supp. 2d 155
The Cartesian Company, Inc. and Greg Gachassin v. the Division of Administrative Law Ethics Adjudicatory Board Panel a and the Louisiana Board of Ethics2023-CA-00398
In re SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: Lungisile Ntsebeza v. Ford Motor Company, and International Business Machines Corporation, Defendants Sakewe Balintulo v. Ford Motor Company, and International Machines Corporation15 F. Supp. 3d 454
In re SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION56 F. Supp. 3d 331
Bethesda African Cemetery Coal. v. Housing Opp. Comm.18/23
In Re SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION633 F. Supp. 2d 117
In Re South African Apartheid Litigation624 F. Supp. 2d 336
In Re South African Apartheid Litigation643 F. Supp. 2d 423
In Re South African Apartheid Litigation617 F. Supp. 2d 228
In Re South African Apartheid Litigation346 F. Supp. 2d 538
Levi Morin v. Law Office of Kleinhans Gruber, PLLC03-15-00174-CV
Michael Johnson and Kennard Law P.C. v. Valero Services, Inc.09-23-00393-CV
African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Shoulders187 N.W.2d 536
Authority of the President Under Domestic and International Law to Use Military Force Against IraqOLC 2002-10-23
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 1-P of 19 January 1992VKS RF 1992, No. 1, p. 3
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 4-P of 15 March 1996VKS RF 1996, No. 2, p. 19
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 5-P of 11 June 2003VKS RF 2003, No. 4, p. 14
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 7-P of 16 February 1999VKS RF 1999, No. 2, p. 12
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 12-P of 30 June 2000VKS RF 2000, No. 5, p. 21
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 2-P of 9 February 2001VKS RF 2001, No. 2, p. 5
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 10-P of 26 April 2002VKS RF 2002, No. 3, p. 8
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 17 October 2006VKS RF 2006, No. 6, p. 11
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 4-P of 20 June 2005VKS RF 2005, No. 4, p. 15
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 9-P of 29 November 2007VKS RF 2007, No. 6, p. 9
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 3-P of 28 January 2008VKS RF 2008, No. 1, p. 4
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 5-P of 15 April 2009VKS RF 2009, No. 3, p. 7
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 2-P of 23 February 2010VKS RF 2010, No. 2, p. 6
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 7-P of 5 July 2011VKS RF 2011, No. 4, p. 10
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 3-P of 19 March 2012VKS RF 2012, No. 2, p. 3
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013VKS RF 2013, No. 4, p. 16
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 1-P of 19 February 2014VKS RF 2014, No. 1, p. 7
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 4-P of 18 March 2015VKS RF 2015, No. 2, p. 5
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 6-P of 21 April 2016VKS RF 2016, No. 3, p. 9
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 2-P of 18 February 2017VKS RF 2017, No. 1, p. 11
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 5-P of 27 March 2018VKS RF 2018, No. 2, p. 14
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 3-P of 14 March 2019VKS RF 2019, No. 2, p. 4
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 1-P of 18 January 2020VKS RF 2020, No. 1, p. 3
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 2-P of 17 March 2021VKS RF 2021, No. 2, p. 6
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 6-P of 27 April 2022VKS RF 2022, No. 3, p. 8
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 1-P of 13 January 2023VKS RF 2023, No. 1, p. 2
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 6-P of 20 June 2023VKS RF 2023, No. 3, p. 12
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 2-P of 12 February 2024VKS RF 2024, No. 1, p. 5
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 5-P of 18 March 2025VKS RF 2025, No. 2, p. 7
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 9-P of 10 June 2025VKS RF 2025, No. 3, p. 11

Exam Application

Apply russian law by identifying the relevant facts, citing the leading case, and explaining the ratio.