Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R (Evans) v Attorney General (Campaign for Freedom of Information intervening) [1] is a 2015 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It concerned a request for disclosure of communications passing between Charles, Prince of Wales and various government departments.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. [1] It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), [2] when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional. [3]
Specialty subject digests exist, such as the Education Law Digest, and the Social Security Digest. For nationwide research, about once a month, West publishes a General Digest volume, which incorporates classified digest notes from all reporters of the West National Reporter System. These are then cumulated into a Decennial Digest. Decennial ...
Text of Evans v. Michigan , 568 U.S. 313 (2013) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived) v
Evans v. Berkeley was a court case which upheld the right of governmental entities in California to withhold support from non-profit organizations that practice ...
Evans v. the United Kingdom was a key case at the European Court of Human Rights. The case outcome could have had a major impact on fertility law, not only within the United Kingdom but also the other Council of Europe countries. Professor John Harris of the University of Manchester told the BBC in September 2002:
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.
Evans v. Eaton, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 356 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, chiefly, that a patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art. It was the fourth published Supreme Court decision on patents, [4] and the second to deal with substantive patent law. [5]