Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In US law, the phrase typically describes whether or not the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been met. [2] The term originally entered into case law with Rochin v. California (1953). This balancing test is often cited as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner.
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 . References
Like all U.S. states except Louisiana, California has a reception statute providing for the "reception" of English law. California Civil Code Section 22.2 is as follows: "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule ...
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 10, 2001. The court held that the police search of a probationer supported by reasonable suspicion and pursuant to a probation condition satisfied the requirements under the Fourth Amendment.
The Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 was a bill signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown to changes sentencing requirements in the California Penal Code. The act converted most sentences from an "indeterminate" sentence length at the discretion of the parole board to a "determinate" sentence length specified by the state legislature ...
In the states of California, Vermont and Oklahoma, mayhem is punishable by up to life imprisonment. In other states where laws defining mayhem (or maiming) are in place, the maximum punishment for mayhem is generally 10 to 20 years, and mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment may also apply, depending on the laws of the state.
This is the type of activity that’s well within the definition of poaching,” said Patrick Foy, captain of the California Fish and Wildlife Department’s legal division.
California v. Carney , 471 U.S. 386 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that a motor home was subject to the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the motor home was readily movable.