Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Later that month, the court issued a ruling clarifying that property taxes could still be used if they were not the primary revenue source for school funding, debts remained valid, and the case would return to the trial judge, but appeals of his decision would bypass the Court of Appeals and go directly back to the Ohio Supreme Court. [26] [27]
Gibson's Bakery is a fifth-generation family business established in Oberlin, Ohio, in 1885. [5] [6] Half of the city's 8,000 residents are students or employees—3,000 and 1,000 respectively—of Oberlin College. [7]
Seal of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Linda Hoskinson was hired as an elementary school teacher at Dayton Christian Schools during the 1978-1979 school year. Her employment contract required following a "biblical chain of command" [3] [4] in lieu of using the state legal system and a signed statement of faith. [5]
This cannot wait — we need the court to act now.” A Columbus City Schools bus waited Sept. 3 outside Indianola K-8 school for students at the end of the school day.
Ohio Law § 3313.66 empowered the school principal to suspend students for 10 days or expel them. The law required students' parents to be notified of the action within 24 hours to be given the reason. If students were expelled, they could appeal to the Board of Education, but §3313.66 gave no such allowances if they were suspended.
Since such motions are extremely common, Anderson has become the most-cited Supreme Court case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) Scientific evidence that is admitted in federal court must be valid and relevant to the case at hand.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruling went back to a Cleveland case in which a man was sentenced to nine months in prison for abusing a kitten. Ohio Supreme Court: People who abuse stray animals can face ...
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".