Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Seal of the Supreme Court of Ohio. DeRolph v. State is a landmark case in Ohio constitutional law in which the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the state's method for funding public education was unconstitutional. [1]
Many of the rights found within the state constitution align with the U.S. Constitution. These include the right to assemble (section 3), the right to bear arms (section 4), and protections against cruel and unusual punishment (section 9). [10] The Ohio Supreme Court holds that "the Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force," however.
Board of Education v. Walter was a 1979 Ohio Supreme Court case relating to the funding of primary and secondary schools in Ohio. The Court ruled that the method of funding public schools at the time was constitutional despite disparities in per-pupil education spending between different districts. Article VI of the Ohio Constitution states ...
The foremost source of state law is the Constitution of Ohio. The Ohio Constitution in turn is subordinate only to the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. The Ohio Constitution vests the legislative power of the state in the Ohio General Assembly.
Law schools in Ohio (9 P) ... Ohio ballot measures (11 P) Ohio General Assembly (6 C, 7 P) Ohio state case law (1 C, 11 P) ... Constitution of Ohio; D. A Dog Named ...
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920), was a United States Supreme Court case coming out of the state of Ohio.It challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the state constitution allowing the state legislature's ratification of federal constitutional amendments to be challenged by a petition signed by six percent of Ohio voters.
The Supreme Court has set a new precedent in custody law due to a local case in which a mother said she was denied due process. Ohio’s highest court says parent’s rights were not violated in ...
City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006), was a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006. The case came upon the heels of Kelo v.City of New London, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain.