Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.
Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969), [1] was a federal case heard by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, decided in 1969 and amended in 1975. It began with fourteen members of the Yakama who sued the U.S. state of Oregon over its fishing regulations.
A case that was combined with Sohappy v. Smith (302 F.Supp. 899), a 1969 United States federal district court case concerning fishing rights of Native Americans. (See United States v. Washington for further info.) Gonzales v. Oregon, a 2006 United States Supreme Court case in which the United States Department of Justice unsuccessfully ...
Fuller v. Oregon , 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment 's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment 's Assistance of Counsel Clause .
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
It begins with the 1905 court case Lochner v. New York, which found that a law forbidding bakers to work more than 60 hours a week, or 10 hours in a day, interfered with "right of contract." The ...
Oregon, Georgia, Boise State and Arizona State claimed the top four seeds while SMU edged out Alabama for the final at-large spot in the debut 12-team College Football Playoff.
Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) and Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917)) did not overrule the holding in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), which protected freedom of contract. The previous decisions, he noted, addressed maximum hours. The present case addressed a minimum wage.