Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.
XIV; Indiana Public Law 109-2005 (SEA 483) Marion County Election Board , 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution .
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
"The State insists that Kizer has no right to a jury trial because civil forfeitures pursuant to Indiana's drug forfeiture laws are a special statutory procedure intended exclusively for trial by ...
The ATC's own policies, however, say that "Indiana law ultimately affords the Commission absolute discretion in determining whether to issue" a license extension like the one the bar was operating ...
Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.. Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example: "falsification of facts" at summary judgment); using the ...
DeKalb County Court House, Auburn, Indiana. The chambers of the Circuit Court judge are at upper left. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity.
Jones case (1854), Indiana became the first state to establish the right for a defendant to obtain court records free of charge. [26] The 1909 case of Woessner v. Bullick [27] established that the Court could invalidate a governor's veto if proper veto procedures were not followed, in effect ruling the pocket-veto as unconstitutional. [28]