Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarifying the legal definition of obscenity as material that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". [ 1 ]
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v.California. [3] It has three parts: Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
As a result of the 1980 campaign, Miller sued Nestande for defamation. Nestande won summary judgment against Miller, who appealed, but the California Fourth District Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed Nestande's victory. [7] Nestande won re-election to the Board of Supervisors in 1984.
1931 Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) - represented Yetta Stromberg; 1932 Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) - represented the Scottsboro Boys; 1933 United States v.
The Supreme Court remanded Miller's case back to the Fifth Circuit. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. dissented, identifying that a similar case, Burrows v. Superior Court, [5] had been decided in the California Supreme Court that ruled that bank records were protected under the Fourth Amendment, in a manner consistent with California Bankers Ass'n v.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday said a Citigroup vice president was not entitled to a share of a $400 million civil fine that the bank agreed to pay in October 2020 over its risk management ...
United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
Miller is one of Trump’s closest loyalists — he has been with Trump since 2016, and was one of the few to survive all four years of Trump’s presidency in the White House.