Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) contains both an “elements clause” and a “residual clause.” [8] The elements clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” and the residual clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it, “by its nature, involves a ...
The first plaintiff listed was Dorothy E. Davis, a 14-year old ninth grader. The case was titled Dorothy E. Davis, et al. versus County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia. [4] The students' request was unanimously rejected by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court. "We have found no hurt or harm to either race," the court ...
Davis v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), a per curiam opinion; Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule) Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda) Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (charitable deductions under §170 of the Internal Revenue Code ...
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court Case from 1979. Its plaintiff was a hearing-impaired student who, after being denied access to the school's nursing department, filed a lawsuit against claiming violation of her rights under the Fourteenth amendment and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973), was a 1973 United States Supreme Court case concerning criminal procedure and collateral attacks on criminal convictions. The majority opinion, authored by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, held that when claims of unconstitutional jury discrimination are brought on postconviction collateral review, they are subject to the timeliness ...
Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule ". [ 1 ]
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel." [1] Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v.
United States v. Davis may refer to: United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on tax treatment of divorce settlements; United States v. Davis, an 11th Circuit ruling on the need for a warrant to obtain cell phone location data; United States v. Davis, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the residual clause of the Hobbs Act