Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution . Factual background
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237 (2015), is United States Supreme Court case opinion that narrowed the standard set in Crawford v. Washington for determining whether hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment .
Federal law governs an Indian tribe's right of possession to land Califano v. Yamasaki: 442 U.S. 682 (1979) Procedural due process and the Social Security Act: Fare v. Michael C. 442 U.S. 707 (1979) Invocation of the Miranda rights by asking for a probation officer Smith v. Maryland: 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, [1] even by merely ...
Ohio's election law violates the rights of people with disabilities who rely on caregivers or family members to return their absentee ballots, a federal judge ruled Monday.
An Ohio man pleaded guilty Wednesday to a federal hate crime, admitting he assaulted an Asian American college student in 2021 and blamed him for Covid-19 because of the victim’s race, according ...
Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), [1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.