Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment.In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."
Johnson ' s continuing prominence is reinforced every year in law schools, where it is the very first case most beginning students read in their required course in Property. The bestselling property casebook calls Johnson 'the genesis of our subject' because it lays 'the foundations of landownership in the United States.'
Johnson v. United States (2000) , 529 U.S. 694 (2000), involving the rights of those serving federal probation and supervised release United States (2005) , 544 U.S. 295 (2005), an opinion of the 2004 term , involving the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 for prisoners seeking to modify their ...
Jailhouse lawyer is a colloquial term in North American English to refer to an inmate in a jail or other prison who, though usually never having practiced law nor having any formal legal training, informally assists other inmates in legal matters relating to their sentence (e.g. appeal of their sentence, pardons, stays of execution, etc.) or to their conditions in prison.
Banner and Kades argue that the 1823 case was the result of collusive lawsuits where land speculators worked together to make claims to achieve a desired result. [29] [30] The plaintiff, Johnson, had inherited land originally purchased from the Piankeshaw tribes. Defendant McIntosh claimed the same land, having purchased it under a grant from ...
Johnson v. United States , 529 U.S. 694 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the rights of those serving federal probation and supervised release were more clearly defined.
In United States v. Johnson , 221 U.S. 488 (1911), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the misbranding provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act [ 1 ] of 1906 did not pertain to false curative or therapeutic statements but only false statements as to the identity of the drug .
Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. 591 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled the Residual Clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and in violation of due process .