Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is a list of cases before the United States Supreme Court that the Court has agreed to hear and has not yet decided. [1] [2] [3] Future argument dates are in parentheses; arguments in these cases have been scheduled, but have not, and potentially may not, take place.
Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed." Reasoning that if commitment is for treatment and betterment of individuals, it must be accompanied by adequate treatment, several lower courts recognized a due process right 14th 1979 Addington v ...
Later that month, the court issued a ruling clarifying that property taxes could still be used if they were not the primary revenue source for school funding, debts remained valid, and the case would return to the trial judge, but appeals of his decision would bypass the Court of Appeals and go directly back to the Ohio Supreme Court. [26] [27]
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper: 470 U.S. 274 (1985) Residency requirements for membership in the state bar Oregon v. Elstad: 470 U.S. 298 (1985) Applying the exclusionary rule to violations of the Miranda rights Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill: 470 U.S. 532 (1985) Due process right of public employees to be heard before ...
With a set of rulings handed down over the past week, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court decisively stood up for the due process rights of Americans who come into conflict with ...
Substantive Due Process, Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment: Moore v. Dempsey: 261 U.S. 86 (1923) mob-dominated trials, federal writ of habeas corpus, due process United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind: 261 U.S. 204 (1923) naturalization and race (Indian-American) Adkins v. Children's Hospital: 261 U.S. 525 (1923) freedom of contract, minimum ...
Citing Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, the Supreme Court remanded this case to a Florida appellate court for consideration of whether arbitration was required for some of the claims alleged. Bobby v. Dixon: 10-1540: 2011-11-07 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (28 U.S.C. § 2254) and Harrington v.
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976) Texas's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it uses a three-part test to determine if a death sentence should be imposed. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) North Carolina's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it calls for a mandatory death sentence to be imposed ...