Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body.
From a blockbuster Second Amendment decision to a more technical case about retaliatory arrests, sharp disagreements have emerged on the Supreme Court over the reasoning of recent rulings ...
John Moore first visited UCLA Medical Center on October 5, 1976, after he was diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia.Physician and cancer researcher David Golde took samples of Moore's blood, bone marrow, and other bodily fluids to confirm the diagnosis and recommended a splenectomy because of the potentially fatal amount of swelling in Moore's spleen. [3]
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v.California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. [1]
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court threw out on Monday a judicial decision that had spared a man convicted of murder in Alabama from execution because he was found to be intellectually disabled.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.
I just finished reading of the most astonishing legal briefs I’ve ever read. It is easily the most malicious Supreme Court brief I’ve ever seen. And it comes not from an angry or unhinged ...