Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), is a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence requiring prosecution to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to elements of the offense, and does not extend to the defense of justification, whereby states could legislate a burden on the defense to prove justification.
retroactive application of sex offender registry program is not an ex post facto law Virginia v. Black: 538 U.S. 343 (2003) constitutionality of laws forbidding cross burning for purposes of intimidation State Farm v. Campbell: 538 U.S. 408 (2003) due process limits on punitive damages Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs: 538 U.S. 721 ...
An example is that breaking into someone's home during a fire in order to rescue a child inside, is justified. If the same act is done in the reasonable but mistaken belief that there was a fire, then the act is excused. What is justified under a utilitarian perspective might be excused under a retributivist standpoint, and vice versa.
This was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) Federal courts may review state court decisions when they rest on federal law or the federal Constitution. This decision provides for the uniform interpretation of federal law throughout the states ...
This case was later overturned; see Lawrence v. Texas below.) State v. Henry, 302 Or. 510, 732 P2d 9 (1987) * The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the concept of obscenity violated the free speech clause of the state constitution and abolished the offense of obscenity in that state. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 ...
The state case has faced delays, with attorneys agreeing to not go to trial before the federal case wraps up. The trial in the federal case is slated to begin Sept. 9. Brooke Muckerman of The ...
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.
The law's effects are thereby far broader than intended or than the U.S. Constitution permits, and hence the law is overbroad. The "strong medicine" of overbreadth invalidation need not and generally should not be administered when the statute under attack is unconstitutional as applied to the challenger before the court.