enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniels_v_Canada_(Indian...

    Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. [2]

  3. Reference Re Eskimos - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Eskimos

    Reference Re Eskimos, 1939 CanLII 22, [1939] SCR 104 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutional status of Canada's Inuit, then called "Eskimos." The case concerned section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 , then the British North America Act, 1867 , which assigns jurisdiction over "Indians, and Lands reserved ...

  4. List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Supreme_Court_of...

    Bail, section 11(e) Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519, 2002 SCC 68 October 31, 2002 Right to vote for prisoners Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45, 2002 SCC 76 December 5, 2002 Harvard mouse, patenting higher lifeforms Apotex Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd

  5. Indigenous specific land claims in Canada - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_specific_land...

    In 1956, the Government of Canada purchased 6 km 2 (1,500 acres) of the land previously owned by the Sulpicians for the Mohawks to live on, but did not grant this land reserve status. [ 12 ] In 1975, the Mohawk Council submitted a comprehensive land claims asserting Aboriginal title to lands along the St. Lawrence River , the Ottawa River and ...

  6. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 91

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), involved the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled that it is necessary for governments to be able to seize property for their uses, such as creating infrastructure, which ultimately are to be determined by the legislature and not the judiciary.

  7. The statute is in the Texas Penal Code section 22.06. It boils down to this: Someone charged with assault can point to the victim’s consent to fight as a defense if:

  8. Canada (AG) v Lavell - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(AG)_v_Lavell

    Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act [1] did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

  9. Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more.