Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Park , 421 U.S. 658 (1975), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States which held the Chief Executive Officer of a company may be criminally liable for contaminating food in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the removal power under the Appointments Clause.
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. [1]
United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), also known as the Keith Case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.
McQuiggin v. Perkins , 569 U.S. 383 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that actual innocence , if proven, is sufficient to circumvent the one-year statute of limitations for petitioners to appeal their conviction enacted within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( AEDPA ).
Berman v. Parker , 348 U.S. 26 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Takings Clause ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution .
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. [1] Dr Miles had ruled that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
United States v. Williams , 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury . It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.