enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. To recuse or refuse? A look at Supreme Court justices ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/recuse-refuse-look-supreme...

    In declining to step aside from two high-profile Supreme Court cases, Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday provided a rare window on the opaque process by which justices decide to step aside from cases.

  3. Abstention doctrine - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention_doctrine

    Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).The doctrine holds that "the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them."

  4. Birchfield v. North Dakota - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birchfield_v._North_Dakota

    Birchfield was a consolidation of three cases: Birchfield v.North Dakota, Bernard v.Minnesota, and Beylund v.Levi.Birchfield was charged with violation of a North Dakota statute for refusing to submit to blood alcohol content testing; Bernard was charged with a violation of a Minnesota statute for refusing to submit to breath alcohol testing; Beylund underwent a blood alcohol test consistent ...

  5. Lorain Journal Co. v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorain_Journal_Co._v...

    Xharles Barber points to a contradiction or disconnect in the case law regarding specific intent in cases of this type, especially as interpreted in Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, [11] the specific intent behind the refusal to deal, a purpose to eliminate a competitor or a purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, was a major ...

  6. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneckloth_v._Bustamonte

    Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that in a case involving a consent search, although knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor in determining whether a grant of consent to a search was voluntary, the state does not need to prove that the person who granted consent to search knew of the right to refuse consent under the Fourth ...

  7. Rennie v. Klein - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennie_v._Klein

    Rennie v. Klein, 462 F. Supp. 1131 (D.N.J. 1978), was a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 1978 to decide whether an involuntarily committed mental patient has a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric medication. It was the first case to establish that such a patient has the right to refuse ...

  8. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v...

    Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public ...

  9. United States v. Bagley - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bagley

    Hughes Anderson Bagley was indicted on 15 counts of violating federal narcotic and firearm statutes in the Western District of Washington in October 1977. In preparation for trial, to be held in December, Bagley's counsel filed a discovery motion that requested information on the witnesses the prosecution intended to call, their criminal records, and any promises made to them in exchange for ...