Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Whether California courts are required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution to enforce equitable judgments from courts of other states, having personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that enjoin competition or are contrary to important public interests in California is an issue that has not yet been decided. [19]
The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, [1] is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution: The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government ...
Following the controversial 2017 California Supreme Court decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland , [ 29 ] local tax increase initiatives have appeared on the ballot that seek to evade the constitutional two-thirds voter approval requirement for special taxes under Proposition 13 [ 30 ] and Proposition 218.
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493 (1939), was a conflict of laws case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held that principles of federalism overcome the Full Faith and Credit Clause where a state is enforcing its own laws on events occurring within the state.
A ballot measure that would have required voter approval for future state tax increases will not appear on the November ballot, California Supreme Court rules.
Serrano v. Priest, a post-Rodriguez decision in which California courts found that the method of funding schools violated the California Constitution's equal protection clause. Gannon v. State, [14] a 2017 Kansas Supreme Court decision ruling that Kansas' school-funding framework violates the Kansas Constitution.
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v.Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. [1]