Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), the district court entered summary judgment for Blakely and Went For It, believing that Bates compelled it to set aside the blackout period. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on similar grounds, although it claimed to be "disturbed that Bates and its progeny required the decision" in the case.
Varying standards of "relevance" seem to apply depending on the prong of the rule applied. The legislature of Florida has also codified the Williams Rule in Florida Statute section 90.404(2)(a). [2] The federal analogue to Florida's Williams Rule is codified under rules 404(a)(2) and 404(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. [3] In Akers v.
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the First Amendment did not prohibit states from barring judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their election campaigns since that specific restriction on candidate's speech was deemed to be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of ...
The Florida Supreme Court adopted the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in March 1954. [2] The proper abbreviation for the rules is Fla.R.Civ.P. [3] The rules may be amended, or new rules added, from time to time and upon the approval of the Florida Supreme Court.
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not entitle a defendant in a criminal trial to refuse to provide details of his alibi witnesses to the prosecution, and that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to have 12 members.
Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1973), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Florida that was the first adoption of the comparative negligence rule in negligence law through judicial decision as opposed to adoption through statute. [1] In the wrongful death case of Hoffman v.
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case. It was a 5–4 decision in which the United States Supreme Court applied its capital proportionality principle, to set aside the death penalty for the driver of a getaway car, in a robbery-murder of an elderly Floridian couple. [1]
Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional. Background information [ edit ]