Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in case citations, 8th Cir.) is a United States federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts: Eastern District of Arkansas
Georgia stated that the Eighth Amendment is not static, but that its meaning is interpreted in a flexible and dynamic manner to accord with, in the words of Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), at page 101, "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Punishments including capital punishment must therefore ...
A tie vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit meant that the U.S. District Court's decision continued to stand, which forced the Tinkers and Eckhardts to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. The only students involved in the lawsuit were Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt. [3]
The doctrine that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be construed strictly does not demand that the act of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3174), compelling interstate carriers to adopt automatic couplers, in which there is an undoubted intention to make some change in the existing law ...
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the Missouri law violated a section of the U.S. Constitution known as the supremacy clause, which asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws.
On Monday, a three-judge panel with the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that determined that citizens and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the ...
In November, a federal appeals court for the eighth circuit ruled that private individuals and groups can no longer sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the law did not ...
In the Eighth Circuit, the court rejected Bucklew's facial challenge, as well as turned down his as-applied challenge as given but allowed Bucklew's case to be reheard if he could demonstrate that there was a feasible alternative, as per Baze. [9] Prior to the rehearing, the Supreme Court concluded in Glossip v.