Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court.
The Ford pardon of Nixon also played a role in the recent Supreme Court decision granting presidents immunity from prosecution for actions that are deemed "official." Said McQuade: "Now we find ...
The Supreme Court decided that the Presidential Recordings and Material Preservation Act was constitutional, ruling in favor of the Administrator of General Services in a 7-2 vote and rejecting all claims that Nixon made in his lawsuit against the Administrator of General Services. The Court rejected Nixon's claim that the Act violates the ...
Richard Nixon [7] January 7, 1972 88% 73/83 8 0 0 4 12 Associate Justice: John Paul Stevens: Gerald Ford: December 19, 1975 78% 64/82 9 11 3 7 30 Associate Justice: Sandra Day O'Connor: Ronald Reagan: September 25, 1981 87.8% 72/82 9 6 2 0 17 Associate Justice: Antonin Scalia: Ronald Reagan: September 26, 1986 79.5% 66/83 8 7 2 8 25 Associate ...
And, while the Supreme Court ordered the release of Nixon’s White House tapes and ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Nixon that the president must comply with subpoenas, the Presidential Records Act ...
President Richard Nixon entered office in 1969 with Chief Justice Earl Warren having announced his retirement from the Supreme Court of the United States the previous year. . Nixon appointed Warren E. Burger to replace Earl Warren, and during his time in office appointed three other members of the Supreme Court: Associate Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William Rehnq
Though the case was decided after Nixon left office, the court ruled in his favour, deciding that “the President’s absolute immunity extends to all acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his ...
Case history; Prior: 58 Ill. App. 3d 57, 373 N. E. 2d 1013: Holding; When a search warrant specifies the person or people named in the warrant to be searched and the things to be seized, there is no authority to search others not named in the warrant, unless the warrant specifically mentions that the unnamed parties are involved in criminal activity or exigent circumstances are clearly shown.