[permalink] [id link]
The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because " n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer ".
from
Wikipedia
Some Related Sentences
Supreme and Court
This seems like an attitude favoring a sort of totalitarian bureaucracy which, under a President of the same stamp, would try to coerce an uncooperative Congress or Supreme Court.
For lawyers, reflecting perhaps their parochial preferences, there has been a special fascination since then in the role played by the Supreme Court in that transformation -- the manner in which its decisions altered in `` the switch in time that saved nine '', President Roosevelt's ill-starred but in effect victorious `` Court-packing plan '', the imprimatur of judicial approval that was finally placed upon social legislation.
his requesting, and often getting, higher wages, better working conditions, better schools -- changes that were slowly emerging even before the Supreme Court decision of 1954.
the Honorable Robert Wagner, Sr., at that time a justice of the New York Supreme Court, was on the reception committee.
The editorial concerned legislative proposals to ease the tax burden on DuPont stockholders, in connection with the United States Supreme Court ruling that DuPont must divest itself of its extensive General Motors stock holdings.
-- Indonesia Military Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence passed on Alan Lawrence Pope, an American pilot.
I fought like a tigress but by the time I appealed my case to the Supreme Court ( 1937 ), Mr. Roosevelt and his `` henchmen '' had done their `` dirty work '' all too well, even going so far as to attempt to `` pack '' the highest tribunal in the land in order to defeat little me.
But the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear my case!!
For almost a hundred years we relied upon state courts ( subject to review by the Supreme Court ) for the protection of most rights arising under national law.
In 1910 it required the convening of a special three-judge court for the issuance of certain injunctions and allowed direct appeals to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, like Congress, showed misgivings concerning this aspect of government by injunction.
On review the Supreme Court, via Mr. Justice Frankfurter, found southern racial problems `` a sensitive area of social policy on which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to adjudication is open ''.
To insure uniformity in the meaning of national law, however, state interpretations are subject to Supreme Court review.
Only when a decision is rendered by the District Court of Appeal ( or, of course, the Supreme Court ) is a binding precedent established.
It is an issue which may well reach the Supreme Court of the United States before judicial finality is achieved.
As a school district, the District of Columbia has had desegregated schools since 1954, shortly after the Supreme Court decision.
On the one hand do we argue the Supreme Court decision required only that a child not be denied admission to a school on account of his race??
Probably a lawyer once said it best for all time in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The struggle was resolved in 1819 in the Supreme Court in one of the most intriguing cases in our judicial history.
`` It is a duty '', said Hough, `` not to let pass this opportunity of protesting against the methods of taking and printing testimony in Equity, current in this circuit ( and probably others ), excused if not justified by the rules of the Supreme Court, especially to be found in patent causes, and flagrantly exemplified in this litigation.
In 1912 the United States Supreme Court adopted a new set of rules of equity which became effective on February 1, 1913.
There is little doubt that they were promulgated by the Supreme Court as a direct result of the Selden patent suit.
Under Formby's plan, an appointee would be selected by a board composed of the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the House, attorney general and chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
The fight over the Warwick School Committee's appointment of a coordinator of audio-visual education may go to the state Supreme Court, it appeared last night.
Supreme and found
After the American Revolution, the parishes in the newly independent country found it necessary to break formally from a church whose Supreme Governor was ( and remains ) the British monarch.
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.
Subsequent mentions in Supreme Court opinions beginning in the mid-20th century have assumed that it would today be found unconstitutional.
Daniel Webster, an alumnus of the class of 1801, presented the College's case to the Supreme Court, which found the amendment of Dartmouth's charter to be an illegal impairment of a contract by the state and reversed New Hampshire's takeover of the College.
A 1998 United States Supreme Court decision found most of the island to be part of New Jersey.
Laws passed by states that restrict these actions have generally been found unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.
The Tenure of Office Act would later be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in dicta.
In 2001, the Nevada Supreme Court found that their state's abolition of the defense was unconstitutional as a violation of Federal due process.
Although Weah was still threatening to take his claims to the Supreme Court if no evidence of fraud was found, Johnson-Sirleaf was declared winner on November 23, 2005, and took office on January 16, 2006.
The concept of " Miranda rights " was enshrined in U. S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for domestic violence.
* 2005 – US Supreme Court rules that the execution of juveniles found guilty of murder is unconstitutional marking a change in " national standards ,".
While studying law under the mentorship of Oliver Ellsworth, the future U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Webster held a full-time job teaching in Hartford — a schedule he found grueling, and ultimately impossible to sustain .< p.
The US Supreme Court, largely abolished the exercise of jurisdiction on the basis of ' quasi in rem ' in Shaffer v. Heitner, except in exceptional circumstances, which sometimes would arise while dealing with real property such as land, and when the owner of the land cannot be found.
However, the United States Supreme Court found that the defendants ( World-Wide Volkswagen Corp .) did not have the minimum contacts with Oklahoma necessary to create personal jurisdiction there.
The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have " penumbras " that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut ( 1965 ).
School vouchers are legally controversial in some states ; in 2005 the Florida Supreme Court found that school vouchers were unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution.
" In Haupt v. United States,, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent ; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable.
Congressional restrictions on the equality of states, even when those limitations have been found in the acts of admission, have been held void by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the law constituted an unconstitutional ex post facto law, for it retroactively punished the offenses mentioned in the oath by preventing those who committed them from taking office.
" In adjudicating Korb's claim of wrongful discharge, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found " no public policy prohibiting an employer from discharging an ineffective at-will employee.
In Leathers v. Medlock,, the Supreme Court found that states may treat different types of the media differently, such as by taxing cable television, but not newspapers.
The Supreme Court found that freedom, but not responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment and so it ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish.
0.362 seconds.