Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Fernandez v. California is governed by two cases: The 1974 case United States v. Matlock and the 2005 case Georgia v. Randolph(GA v. Randolph). In Matlock the U.S. Supreme Court laid out the so-called "co-occupant consent rule". This rule means that anyone who has "common authority" over the home can consent to a search of the home. [1]
California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), [1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal "harmless error" rule must apply, instead of equivalent state rules, for reviewing trials where federally-protected rights had been violated.
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Article I, Section 8, to the California State Constitution California , 110 U.S. 516 (1884), [ 1 ] was a landmark case [ 2 ] [ 3 ] decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments , as distinguished from the federal government , to avoid using grand juries in ...
Dicta from the California Supreme Court is entitled to great weight, and the Court of Appeal rarely exercises its power to disregard the high court's gratuitous statements about California law. [10] Cases from other states are often cited in California appellate opinions, particularly when the out-of-state decisions disagree with one another. [11]
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.
Other California residents have taken the Supreme Court’s ruling and Democratic officials’ exuberant co-sign as further evidence of the nation’s growing disdain for society’s most ...
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.