Ravenclaw v. Redall
| Ravenclaw v. Redall | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Presented and Argued: January 17th-February 1st, 1866 | |||
| Decided: February 3rd, 1866 | |||
| Full Name: Cockington Ravenclaw v. President Jonathan Redall | |||
| Case History | |||
| Local Courts | N/A | ||
| State Courts | N/A | ||
| Issue | Approval of Nominations to the Cupboard (Officially Interference of Ability to Work) | ||
| Council Decision | |||
| Supreme Decider | Sophie Verrecchia | ||
| Associate Supreme Deciders | Christina Faites Devin Bryxe, Adam Cook Franklin Sade Medha Gredy Jessica Fultz | ||
| Opinions | Majority Opinion: Verrecchia, Faites, Sade, Fultz Minority Opinion: Bryxe, Cook, Gredy | ||
| Final Holding | All nominations to the Cupboard by the President must first be approved by the House of Bureaucrats in a majority vote | ||
| Associated Laws | |||
| Constitution Ravenclaw Executive Lawsuit Bill Bureaucrats v. Logan | |||
Cockington Ravenclaw v. President Jonathan Redall (USQSC PF2, 1866), more commonly referred to as Ravenclaw v. Redall, was a Supreme Council case in the United States of Quentin, eventually concluding that the House of Bureaucrats must approve every nomination of the President to the President's advisory panel, the Cupboard. The case is unique in that the House of Bureaucrats did not approve the proposal, called the Ravenclaw Executive Lawsuit Bill, to bring a lawsuit against the President. However, Cockington Ravenclaw, the Head Bureaucrat at the time, decided to bring up a personal lawsuit against the President, with the official charge being that the President interfered in the ability of Ravenclaw to do his job, although the case also carried with it a decision of who had what power in the government.
