enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

  3. Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Eleventh_District...

    Since the Ohio Supreme Court elects to review only a few cases per year, the Court of Appeals is generally the court of last resort in Ohio. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals was composed of four judges until legislative approval in 1999 increased their number to five, each elected to six-year terms by the citizens of the five counties in ...

  4. Colleen Mary O'Toole - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Mary_O'Toole

    Two of the judges appointed to hear O'Toole's case, [Judge Patrick F. Fischer and Judge Vernon L. Preston,] had dissented in the O'Neill case. [8] The Ohio Supreme Court fined O'Toole and ordered her to pay the complainant's attorney's fees. [9] Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, concurring in part and dissenting in part, wrote the following

  5. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Board_of...

    Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: certain public-sector employees can have a property interest in their employment, per Constitutional Due Process. See Board of Regents v. Roth

  6. City of Norwood v. Horney - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Norwood_v._Horney

    City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006), was a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006. The case came upon the heels of Kelo v.City of New London, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain.

  7. Ohio v. American Express Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_v._American_Express_Co.

    Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of antitrust law in relationship to two-sided markets.The case specifically involves policies set by some credit card banks that prevented merchants from steering customers to use cards from other issuers with lower transaction fees, forcing merchants to pay higher transaction fees to ...

  8. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_List_v...

    After the Supreme Court decision, the SBA List challenged the constitutionality of the Ohio law in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission. On September 11, 2014, Judge Timothy Black struck down the law as unconstitutional. [25]

  9. DeRolph v. State - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeRolph_v._State

    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. [27] [28]