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 ...
The federal court combined the case with another case, United States v. Oregon, in which the U.S. federal government sued the state along with the Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes. [2] The ruling issued by judge Robert C. Belloni in 1969 is known as the "Belloni Decision" or the "Fair Share Doctrine."
In Missouri v. Seibert the police practice was to obtain a confession from suspects, then Mirandize the suspects and obtain a "valid" confession. Missouri developed this practice as a result of the holding in Oregon v. Elstad. The Supreme Court condemned this practice and suppressed the statements. [4]
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, 511 U.S. 93 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court decision focused on the aspect of state power and the interpretation of the Commerce Clause as a limitation on states' regulatory power.
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]
Brandeis took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Oregon , 243 U.S. 426 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ten-hour work day, which was accepted for both men and women, [ 1 ] but the state minimum-wage laws were not changed until 20 years later.
The ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the justices reversed a ruling from a San Francisco-based appeals court that found public sleeping bans were a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. [1]