Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. [1] While the majority of the Supreme Court Justices voted to uphold the conviction, the ruling has become an ...
Doctrine. The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the ...
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. [A] Holmes is one of the most widely cited and influential Supreme Court justices in American history, noted for his long tenure on the Court and for his pithy opinions—particularly those on civil liberties and American ...
United States Army. Years of service. 1953–1955. Unit. Counterintelligence Corps. Cruz Reynoso (May 2, 1931 – May 7, 2021) was an American civil rights lawyer and jurist. Reynoso was the first Chicano Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, serving from 1982 to 1987. He also served on the California Third District Court of Appeal ...
Federal Arbitration Act, § 2. Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning arbitration. It was originally brought by 7-Eleven franchisees in California state courts, alleging breach of contract by the chain's then parent corporation. Southland pointed to the arbitration clauses in their ...
The ruling by the California Supreme Court is a major victory for the ride-hailing industry, which has said that many companies would end or limit service in the state if they were forced to treat ...
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1] This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner. [2] [3]
"Yet, in their infinite wisdom, California's out-of-touch Supreme Court overturned two lower court rulings that found the officers acted lawfully and sided with the drug and gun possessing owner ...