[permalink] [id link]
In Papachristou v. Jacksonville,, the Court held that a traditional vagrancy law was void for vagueness because its “ broad scope and imprecise terms denied proper notice to potential offenders and permitted police officers to exercise unfettered discretion in the enforcement of the law .” In Brown v. Texas,, the Court struck down Texas ’ s stop-and-identify law as violating the Fourth Amendment because it allowed police officers to stop individuals without “ specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity .” And in Kolender v. Lawson,, the Court struck down a California stop-and-identify law that required a suspect to provide “ credible and reliable identification ” upon request.
from
Wikipedia
Some Related Sentences
Papachristou and .
Image created by Aris Papachristou, June 15, 2004.
When Murray Emslie left a year later, he was replaced by Tician Papachristou, who had been recommended by Breuer's former student, I. M. Pei.
Greenwhich, Connecticut, 1969 ( with T. Papachristou )
v and .
Lincoln denounced the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford as a conspiracy to extend slavery.
In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford ; Chief Justice Roger B. Taney opined that blacks were not citizens, and derived no rights from the Constitution.
One example of this ( from the Queen's Bench in England ) is Doyle v Olby ( Ironmongers ) Ltd 2 QB 158, the claimant appealed ( successfully ) on the basis that, although he won in the court below, the lower court had applied the wrong measure of damages and he had not been fully recompensated.
" " Graham v. Borgen ", 483 F 3d.
* Emperor Charles I. of Austria ( 1916 – 1918 ) http :// www. youtube. com / watch? v = jMU9FFzez1A
* Emperor Franz Joseph ( 1848 – 1916 ) http :// www. youtube. com / watch? v = jecUwMPk8pE & feature = related
The doctrine that no man can cast off his native allegiance without the consent of his sovereign was early abandoned in the United States, and Chief Justice John Rutledge also declared in Talbot v. Janson, " a man may, at the same time, enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.
Austrian economics, 3 v. Edward Elgar.
Description and scroll to chapter preview links for v. 1.
Part of Title I was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court as it pertains to states in the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett as violating the sovereign immunity rights of the several states as specified by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In fact, Congress explicitly cited Toyota v. Williams in the text of the ADAAA itself as one of its driving influences for passing the ADAAA.
Access Now v. Southwest Airlines
Access Now v. Southwest Airlines was a case where the District Court decided that the website of Southwest Airlines was not in violation of the Americans with Disability Act because the ADA is concerned with things with a physical existence and thus cannot be applied to cyberspace.
v and Jacksonville
Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U. S. 656 ( 1993 ).
* American Atheists Inc., Mark W. Butler v. The City of Jacksonville, Florida ( 2006 ) ( Sued for the city's tax-funded " Faith Day ")
v and Court
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota released its judgement on October 19, 1973, finding in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand that the ENIAC patent was a derivative of John Atanasoff's invention.
* 1905 – The Supreme Court of the United States decides Lochner v. New York which holds that the " right to free contract " is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In the Georgacarakos v. Watts case Peter N. Georgacarakos filed a pro se civil-rights complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against 19 prison officials for " interference with the free exercise of his Ásatrú religion " and " discrimination on the basis of his being Ásatrú ".
North Carolina v. Alford, Supreme Court of the United States | U. S. Supreme Court ( 1970 )
The Alford guilty plea originated in the United States Supreme Court case of North Carolina v. Alford ( 1970 ).
In the 1995 case State of Idaho v. Howry before the Idaho Court of Appeals, the Court commented on the impact of the Alford guilty plea on later sentencing.
" In the 1999 South Carolina Supreme Court case State v. Gaines, the Court held that Alford guilty pleas were to be held valid in the absence of a specific on-the-record ruling that the pleas were voluntary – provided that the sentencing judge acted appropriately in accordance with the rules for acceptance of a plea made voluntarily by the defendant.
In the 2006 case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Ballard v. Burton, Judge Carl E. Stewart writing for the Court held that an Alford guilty plea is a " variation of an ordinary guilty plea ".
* North Carolina v. Alford, Supreme Court of the United States
* US v. Szucko, Definition of term by United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
* US v. Bierd, Definition of term by United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
* 1895 – In Pollock v. Farmers ' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court of the United States declares unapportioned income tax to be unconstitutional.
In 2007, Clarence Thomas published his autobiography, My Grandfather's Son, in which he revisited the controversy, calling Hill his " most traitorous adversary " and saying that pro-choice liberals who feared that he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if he were seated on the Supreme Court used the scandal against him.
A court case allowing the União do Vegetal to import and use the tea for religious purposes in the United States, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, was heard by the U. S. Supreme Court on November 1, 2005 ; the decision, released February 21, 2006, allows the UDV to use the tea in its ceremonies pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In terms of ultra vires actions in the broad sense, a reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it is unreasonable ( under Canadian law, following the rejection of the " Patently Unreasonable " standard by the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick ), Wednesbury unreasonable ( under British law ), or arbitrary and capricious ( under U. S. Administrative Procedure Act and New York State law ).
* 1938 – U. S. Supreme Court delivers its opinion in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins and overturns a century of federal common law.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were, however, never appealed to the Supreme Court, whose right of judicial review was not established until Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
v and held
The Supreme Court of the United States held in its landmark case, McGowan v. Maryland ( 1961 ), that Maryland's blue laws violated neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Regal ( Hastings ) Ltd v Gulliver All ER 378 the House of Lords, in upholding what was regarded as a wholly unmeritorious claim by the shareholders, held that:
However, a more modern approach has since developed, and in Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing BCLC 498 the court held that the rule in Equitable Fire related only to skill, and not to diligence.
A first exception to this rule arose in an 1852 case by New York's highest court, Thomas v. Winchester, which held that mislabeling a poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put " human life in imminent danger.
In, 1909, New York held in Statler v. Ray Mfg.
In Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson, ( decided in 1915 by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states ), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from a defective wheel, when the automobile owner had a contract only with the automobile dealer and not with the manufacturer, even though there was " no question that the wheel was made of dead and ‘ dozy ‘ wood, quite insufficient for its purposes.
In 1938, the U. S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U. S. 64, 78 ( 1938 ), overruled earlier precedent, and held " There is no federal general common law ," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere.
An example of convergence from the other direction is shown in Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health ( Corte suprema di Cassazione, Italy, 1982 ), in which Italy's Supreme Court held that questions it has already answered need not be resubmitted.
In Grady v. Corbin ( 1990 ), the Court held that a double jeopardy violation could lie even where the Blockburger test was not satisfied, but Grady was overruled in United States v. Dixon ( 1993 ).
DADT was upheld by five of the federal Courts of Appeal, The Supreme Court, in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. ( 2006 ), unanimously held that the federal government could constitutionally withhold funding from universities, no matter what their nondiscrimination policies might be, for refusing to give military recruiters access to school resources.
In Foucha v. Louisiana ( 1992 ) the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person could not be held " indefinitely ".
In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey,, and Blakely v. Washington,, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines.
In the legal case of Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 ( 1983 ), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state legislature could constitutionally have a paid chaplain to conduct legislative prayers " in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
" In Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court's holding in the Marsh case meant that the " Chesterfield County could constitutionally exclude Cynthia Simpson, a Wiccan priestess, from leading its legislative prayers, because her faith was not ' in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court held that unless a suspect actually states that he is relying on this right, his subsequent voluntary statements can be used in court and police can continue to interact with ( or question ) him.
In Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U. S. 292 ( 1990 ), the United States Supreme Court held that undercover officers do not have to give suspects a Miranda warning prior to asking questions that may elicit incriminating responses.
In Mabo v Queensland ( No 1 ) ( 1988 ) the High Court held that this legislation was contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
In DPP v Harper ( 1997 ) it was held that insanity is not generally a defence to strict liability offences.
Another example might be Fisher v Bell, where it was held that a shopkeeper who placed an illegal item in a shop window with a price tag did not make an offer to sell it, because of the specific meaning of " offer for sale " in contract law.
0.908 seconds.