Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
"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
Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court on April 19, 1995, reversing the Ohio Supreme Court in a 7–2 decision. [20] Stevens emphasized that the First Amendment protects a right to anonymity, referring to Talley as precedent, [ 21 ] and stated that Ohio's interests in preventing fraud and informing the electorate were ...
An innominate jury, also known as an anonymous jury, is a jury whose members are kept anonymous by court order.This may be requested by the prosecution or defense in order to protect the jury from the media, potential jury tampering, or social pressure to return a particular verdict.
American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina & Syidah Mateen v. State of North Carolina, 181 N.C. App. 430, 639 S.E.2d 136 (2007), was a court case in the state of North Carolina within the United States of America. One of the main plaintiffs was Syidah Mateen an American-Muslim of Greensboro, North Carolina.
Such sources may require anonymity to protect them from physical, economic or professional reprisals in response to their revelations. There is a strong tradition of legal source protection internationally, in recognition of the function that confidential sources play in facilitating 'watchdog' or 'accountability' journalism. While professional ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The woman accusing Jay-Z and Sean “Diddy” Combs of sexually assaulting her when she was 13 can proceed anonymously (“at least for now”) in her lawsuit against the rappers, a judge ruled ...
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. [1]