Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Agents of the federal or state government may be permitted by the court to intervene when a party to a case relies on a federal or state statute or executive order, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, for its claim or defense. In both intervention of right and permissive intervention, the applicant must make a timely application to be heard.
The following conversation took place between Gideon and the judge: [2] The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel to represent a defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense.
In that case, the decision of the court may be ultra vires, and may sometimes be characterized as judicial activism. In 1824, US Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the following on this subject: Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing.
"Any person may conduct and manage the person's own case in any court of this state." [1] Texas: Const. Art. 1 § 13 "All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law." [1] Utah: Const. Art. 1 § 11
In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases. However, a discrepancy was found in the type of religious liberty claim, with most claims for exemption from law failing and no allegedly discriminatory laws surviving. [ 3 ]
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case [1] [2] [3] concerning same-sex marriage.The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4 ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Application of Gault; 99 Ariz. 181 (1965), Supreme Court of Arizona, Rehearing denied Holding; Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.