Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The high court's decision reverses a 4-1 ruling Aug. 30 by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which said that the current law, Act 77 of 2019, violates the fundamental right to vote under the ...
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court late Saturday ruled that it won't take up two lawsuits over mail ballots because it's too close to the Nov. 5 presidential election and tens of thousands of people ...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Friday that mail-in ballots with incorrect dates will not be counted in November, reversing a previous ruling from a lower court in the battleground state. The ...
Neff, the Supreme Court delivered a major ruling on personal jurisdiction, which was later upended by the International Shoe Co. v. Washington decision. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sided against Mallory, ruling that consent-by-registration jurisdiction does violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States ...
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System. It also claims to be the oldest appellate court in the United States , [ 1 ] a claim that is disputed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court . [ 2 ]
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Friday reversed a lower court's ruling from almost two weeks ago that had said the two most populous counties of the battleground state will not be able to throw ...
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the trial court ruled against Muniz, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court decision and ordered a new trial, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear the case. [8] At issue in this case is whether the statements from Muniz were properly admissible at his trial.