Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a lawsuit to remove two board members ... of Ohio board meeting. The state's second largest public pension fund oversees about $90 billion invested on behalf ...
This case featured the first example of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) A section of the Treaty of Paris supersedes an otherwise valid Virginia statute under the Supremacy Clause. This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a state law. Fletcher v.
Ohio Elections Commission. Margaret McIntyre died while the case was still being litigated in the state courts. On behalf of Joseph McIntyre, the executor of McIntyre's estate, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, which the Court granted on February 22, 1994.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), [1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.
April 24, 2024 at 5:44 AM. The Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments today on whether the Stark County Board of Elections violated the state's Open Meetings Act in 2020 ...
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] On March 24, 1997, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in a 4–3 decision that the state funding system "fails to provide for a thorough and efficient system of ...
This week we explain the lawsuit filed over Ohio's new Congressional districts, attempted election fraud and a civil suit in the House Bill 6 scandal.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".