Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have ...
Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969), [1] was a federal case heard by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, decided in 1969 and amended in 1975. It began with fourteen members of the Yakama who sued the U.S. state of Oregon over its fishing regulations.
A case that was combined with Sohappy v. Smith (302 F.Supp. 899), a 1969 United States federal district court case concerning fishing rights of Native Americans. (See United States v. Washington for further info.) Gonzales v. Oregon, a 2006 United States Supreme Court case in which the United States Department of Justice unsuccessfully ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]
Image source: Getty Images. Block. Block (NYSE: SQ) is a financial technology company offering a variety of payment processing services to ease its customers' pain points. Some of its products ...
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Most of us are familiar with the signs of acute inflammation.If you’ve ever had a swollen, sprained ...
Fuller v. Oregon , 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment 's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment 's Assistance of Counsel Clause .