The word 'appellants' is correct and commonly used in written English.
'Appellants' refers to a person or party who files an appeal or legal challenge against a court decision. It is the plural form of 'appellant', which is the noun used to describe someone who appeals a decision. Example: The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the appellants, who were the family members of the victim seeking justice for their loss.
"None of the appellants took any interest whatever in the details of the purchases and sales; they were indifferent to whether a profit or loss was made," Bishopp said in his ruling.
As for fears that this permits a tyranny of the majority, the court warns against a "tyranny of the minority", and says that in this case the appellants have failed to provide a "legal basis for claiming that their rights should trump those of the majority".
The appellants in Halbig and King, along with those in two other pending cases, argue that these IRS regulations are illegal.
The appellants argue that Section 377a violates Singapore's constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.A judgment is not expected for several months, but Tea Braun one of the appellants' legal advisers and the legal director for Human Dignity Trust, which challenges laws criminalising homosexuality is not optimistic.
They did not go so far as to allow compensation when a new fact only might have prevented conviction.All three appellants in the joined cases before the court had murder convictions overturned but had been denied compensation.
Justice Antonin Scalia said to Richard Pildes, a lawyer for the appellants: "You're making the argument that the opponents of black plaintiffs used to make here".
The hotel owners lost in the Court of Appeals in February, but Lady Justice Rafferty had this to say: "It would be unfortunate to replace legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the Appellants' beliefs)" The Supreme Court has accepted their case.Strasbourg too has seen action.
The appellants had argued that the law violated two articles of the constitution: one that Italians are "equal before the law", and another that guarantees them the right to defend their interests in court.
The appellants are three gay Singaporean men, one of whom was arrested for having oral sex in a public lavatory (in practice, the government does not generally go after homosexuality in private).
"We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an 'Exchange established by the State,' and section 36B does not authorise the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges".
Meanwhile, the appellants in King v. Burwell, having decided not to seek an en banc hearing, filed a writ of certiorari (petition for review) with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted on November 7, 2014, despite the fact that there was technically no disagreement between the two appellate courts on the central issue.
