Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Case history; Prior: A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 838 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2188 (2017).: Holding; Both the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as prescribed by law in 52 U.S.C. § 20507, permit Ohio to have a list-maintenance process that removes people from the state's on the basis of inactivity.
Held at the Perry County Courthouse in New Lexington, [11] the case produced a 30-day trial, a transcript more than 5,600 pages long and 450 exhibits before the trial judge, Linton D. Lewis, Jr., ruled on July 1, 1994 that Ohioans had a fundamental right to a state-funded education and that the state’s system for providing that education was ...
A few months after this attempt, on January 17, 1959, Johnny died by suicide from carbon monoxide poisoning. [3] Dorothy took her children and moved away from Miami, eventually returning to Lancaster, Ohio. There, she remarried her ex-husband. This marriage lasted about a year. In 1962, she met Chalmer Milligan (1927–1988). [4]
Case history; Prior: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zauderer, 10 Ohio St. 3d 44, 461 N.E.2d 883 (1984); probable jurisdiction noted, 469 U.S. 813 (1984).: Holding; A State may require advertisers to include "purely factual and uncontroversial" disclosures without violating the First Amendment rights of the advertiser as long as the disclosure is in the State's interest in preventing ...
Upgrade to a faster, more secure version of a supported browser. It's free and it only takes a few moments:
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), [1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9–0 vote that the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution, which was substantially similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures. [1]