Note: more information will be added later.
Important Links:
OldCon (passed 6/24):
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=53600
Court (proposed 7/4, passed 7/9 (Amendment II OldCon), details worked out 7/12):
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=54881, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=54953, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=55189.
Court thread:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=57495
NewCon (11/4):
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=72122
Cases:
Timeline v. UnOrthOdOx (Case #1,
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=58500)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: Validity of a poll alleged to be an invalid repoll.
Ruling: In favor of Timeline and Togas. The poll was ruled invalid.
Concurrences: Captain (wrote opinion), Epistax, jdjdjd, and notyoueither
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Trip
Precedent and Other Importance: First of all, it established the Court's procedures, being the first case. However, the most important precedent was that Abstains were ruled to be not counted in poll results. However, this is part of the NewCon so no precedent (other than the Court Procedures) is in effect today.
skywalker v. Timeline (Case #2,
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=58430)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: Validity of Timeline's mid-term switching of government position in Term 1.
Ruling: Dismissed but in favor of Timeline.
Concurrences: Captain, Epistax (wrote opinion), jdjdjd, and notyoueither
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Trip
Precedent and Other Importance: The precedent set was that "No one may be held responsible for an action undertaken which violates a law which is not in force as of the time of that action". This was confirmed by the NewCon. However, in light of the ruling in civman2000 v. ManicStarSeed, this could be changed, for the Court refused to rule on the issue of retroactive laws, although in that case it was different becasue it was authorizing rather than condemning a previous action. Either way, it is quite possible that in the near future the Court will rule on the validity of retroactive laws once again.
Trevman v. UberKruX (Case #3, no link)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: Validity of a poll.
Ruling: Dismissed but in favor of UberKruX.
Concurrences: Captain, Epistax, jdjdjd (wrote opinion), Trip, and notyoueither
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: The ruling was that unofficial polls never have any legal power and thus are always invalid. With the clear definition of Senate Bills in the NewCon though, this is no longer applicable.
Togas v. MrWhereItsAt (Case #4, no link)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: President MrWhereItsAt's violation of the orders of Foreign Advisor Togas.
Resolution: In favor of Togas but a consent agreement was made to take no action.
Concurrences: Epistax, jdjdjd, notyoueither (wrote opinion), and Sheik (wrote second opinion)
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Kramerman
Precedent or Other Importance: Sheik's opinion stated that "any other infractions may be followed up with more severe action," setting a precedent for punishments of presidents violating orders. However, notyoueither stated that "the Court has not examined all possible avenues of argument in this case," suggesting that future similar cases could result in different judgments. Either way, this case's precedent was more or less eliminated by the NewCon's changing of the President's requirements of following orders.
Mr. Orange v. Reddawg (Case #5,
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=66698)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: The legality of Reddawg's persistent criticism of an analysis done by Mr. Orange.
Resolution: In favor of Mr. Orange on one charge and against on the rest but no action was taken.
Concurrences: kring, Nimitz, notyoueither (wrote opinion), and Sheik (except in libel charge)
Dissentions: Sheik (libel charge only, wrote opinion)
Abstentions: Kramerman
Precedent or Other Importance: This case is most likely the most significant one that has come before the Court since its creation. The majority opinion stated that "accusations of wrong doing which are baseless and persistent shall be actionable against the accusor in this court." Furthermore, the Court ruled that "Reddawg did libel Mr. Orange. This action is not in violation of the Code of Laws. It is however something which we have just ruled upon and enunciated as common law. It is applicable in this case and in future cases." This precedent of common law opens the way for other doctrines not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution to be followed. However, the Court later said that "An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws." Whether this would include a violation of common law is uncertain. On the other hand, the Court ruled in favor of Reddawg on another charge and set the precedent that "Being in error" does not violate the Constitutional ban on giving "false information given to the public." The Court also ruled that censure is not a form of punishment, but seemed to implicitly agree with Reddawg that the Court does not have the power to punish people except in impeachment cases. This is also an interesting precedent which does not seem to be overturned anywhere in the NewCon. Lastly, the Court ruled that it has the power to interpret the rules of Apolyton, particularly in the matter of when free speech is protected, saying that "The g0dz do not trouble themselves with all affairs of men; this Court does, so far as they concern the nation of Apolytonia." Overall, the precedents set by this decision are still standing, for nothing addressing any part of it is in the NewCon.
E_T & GhengisFarb (Issue #1, no link)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: The results of the Term VI Domestic Minister were tied and the Court investigated as required by the NewCon.
Resolution: E_T was declared the victor.
Concurrences: Sheik (wrote opinion), Nimitz, notyoueither, kring
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Kramerman
Precedent or Other Importance: The ability to withdraw from an election after the elections are posted was established, for that is what GhengisFarb did. However, the Court did not estblish a system for resolving tied elections.
UnOrthOdOx v. Thud (Case #6,
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...threadid=70754)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: UnOrthOdOx called for the impeachment of Thud for neglecting his duties.
Resolution: Accusation withdrawn.
Concurrences: NA (opinion written by GodKing)
Dissentions: NA
Abstentions: NA
Precedent or Other Importance: The Court did not rule whether Thud's actions were impeachable offenses. Because the game was never delayed, the decision seemed to sympathize with Thud, but no precedent was set.
civman2000 v. ManicStarSeed (Case #7,
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=71705)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: Constitutionality of a law forfeiting the rights of Senators to bring a case against the Term VI Administration for violating a certain law.
Resolution: In favor of civman2000.
Concurrences: GodKing (wrote opinion), Sheik, Nimitz, notyoueither, and Togas
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: The Court recognized the right of all citizens to bring a case before the Court, and the illegality of pardoning people by denying this right. However, it did not rule on the issue of retroactive approval of actions (as opposed to retroactive condemnation, which was ruled illegal in skywalker v. Timeline and also in Article V, Section 3, Clause (a) of the NewCon) or the possibility of impeachment of those no longer in office, although the latter was resolved in DAVOUT v. Aggie et al. Lastly, the Court implicitly established a precedent of invalidating an entire law if one section is found unconstitutional.
DAVOUT v. Aggie et al. (Case #8,
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=72175)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: DAVOUT called for the impeachment of Aggie, Arnelos, and Togas as a result of the decision in civman2000 v. ManisStarSeed.
Resolution: In favor of Aggie et al.
Concurrences: GodKing (wrote opinion),
??Sheik, Nimitz, notyoueither, and Togas??
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: The Court ruled that officials may not be impeached after they leave office. This resolved an unresolved question of civman2000 v. ManicStarSeed.
skywalker v. Arnelos et al. (Case #9,
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=73076)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: The legality of a veto alleged to be too late.
Resolution: In favor of Arnelos et al.
Concurrences: jdjdjd (wrote opinion
?), Nimitz, and GodKing(wrote second opinion)
Dissentions: Sheik (wrote opinion) and Togas (wrote second opinion)
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: First of all, this case is important because it is the first time the Court has ever split 3-2. The closeness of this case could have had interesting repercussions if Aro had decided to not reappoint Nimitz or Sheik, and future judicial appointments could be based on this (as Arnelos's Term VII appointments were partially made to try to overturn Mr. Orange v. Reddawg). The other important precedent involves the supremacy of real life. All five justices, concurring and dissenting, agreed that real life takes precedent over the game. This precedent is thus unanimously set and will most likely stand until the end of the game. However, exactly what real life's supremacy means was interpreted differently. The Majority ruled that "The guideline in the constitution requiring the posting of the veto within 72 hours is in the constitution to help prevent unwarranted delays to the game. Looking at the amount of delay (minimal) and the causes behind it (the sad RL situation Arnelos experienced) I find that the spirit of the constitution was not violated." Thus it seems that the litmus test for determining whether real life excuses a technical violation of law or the Constitution is whether the spirit of the law and Constitution was violated as well. The dissenters, on the other hand, said that "The veto is invalid because it missed the deadline" and "the veto is invalid, but certainly not illegal." Thus it seems that the veto did not violate the spirit of the Constitution, according to the Minority it violated the letter of it and thus must still be considered invalid. Justice Togas, in a separate dissenting opinion, strengthened this hairsplitting argument by adding that the veto could have been made without Arnelos's presence. One other small precedent that could be set is siding with the defendant on the grounds that a case is frivolous. Although the frivolousness was only one of many reasons cited in the Majority Opinion, it was mentioned. Overall, the only permanent and certain precedent set by this is likely to be the supremacy of real life. Exactly how supreme it is has been shakily established by the "spirit of the Constitution" test, but this is not only a vague criterion that will require court interpretation, but also something only agreed to by 3/5 of the Court, a figure that very well may change as a result of future elections, although with the reappointment of Nimitz it should be here to stay for at least a month.
civman2000 v. Thud (Case #10,
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=73973)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: The consitutionality of a law allowing Senate meetings to make laws and the laws created in one such meeting.
Resolution: In favor of civman2000 but in favor of Thud in that "poll" can be interpreted loosely.
Concurrences: Togas (wrote opinion), Sheik (except on definition of a poll), jdjdjd (wrote second opinion), and GodKing
Dissentions: Sheik (only on definition of a poll, wrote opinion)
Abstentions: Nimitz
Precedent or Other Importance: First of all, the Court ruled in favor of Thud (though Sheik dissented on this) and said that "The Constitution is not requiring that only the Apolyton boards be used" to make polls. This opens the way for future new methods of making laws, even though the specific one in question was invalidated. Indeed, given that the Court's only reason for invalidating Thud's bill was that the bill did not include all the Constitutional requirements, it would be quite easy to make a new bill for Senate Meetings that required the proposed bills to be posted 72 hours in advance and specified "a viable 'write in' system to allow senators who cannot attend the meeting casting their votes" that would be legal, although requiring 72 hours of advance notice would defeat the purpose of having meetings. Overall, although the Court shot down Thud's Senate Meeting law, it actually facilitated future similar measures by saying what wouild be required and validating general definitions of "polls."
. This is an excellent resource, and it was quite enjoyable reading your analysises of each case. I can't wait to see your writeup of case 9, whatever the result may be 
