Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1933 court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [1]
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state.
"In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor's choice." [1] Wyoming: Const Art 1 § 8 "All courts shall be open and every person for an injury done to person, reputation or property shall have justice administered without sale, denial, or delay." [1] Wyoming
The bride, Claire Kendall Taetz, shared a video of the incident on TikTok which has since accumulated over three million views. The video shows her and her husband-to-be standing at an altar as a ...
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.
Caroline Herrling pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Among her victims was Robert Tascon. She sold his Encino home out from under him for $1.5 million.
A 26-year-old woman pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a fatal April 2023 drunk-driving crash in South Carolina, USA, that killed a bride on her wedding day and injured the groom. Driving ...
In the United States, federal case law dictates the privileges permissible and prohibited in federal trials, [2] while state case law governs their scope in state courts. A common rule for both the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege is that, "absent a lawful marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership, there is no privilege."