enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Employment Division v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have ...

  3. Sohappy v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohappy_v._Smith

    The federal court combined the case with another case, United States v. Oregon, in which the U.S. federal government sued the state along with the Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes. [2] The ruling issued by judge Robert C. Belloni in 1969 is known as the "Belloni Decision" or the "Fair Share Doctrine."

  4. Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom...

    [23] In the case of Miller v. Commissioner, the taxpayers objected to the use of social security numbers, arguing that such numbers related to the "mark of the beast" from the Bible. In its decision, the U.S. Court discussed the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but ruled against the taxpayers. [24] In Navajo Nation v.

  5. Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Waste_Systems,_Inc...

    Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, 511 U.S. 93 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court decision focused on the aspect of state power and the interpretation of the Commerce Clause as a limitation on states' regulatory power.

  6. The Supreme Court declined to weigh in at the time on that case from Boise, Idaho, but took up the issue this term after that precedent was used to challenge anti-camping rules in Grants Pass.

  7. Oregon v. Mitchell - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell

    Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]

  8. Oregon defendants without a lawyer must be released from jail ...

    www.aol.com/news/oregon-defendants-without...

    A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that Oregon defendants must be released from jail after seven days if they don’t have a defense attorney. In its decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit ...

  9. Permit-to-purchase: Oregon's tough new gun law faces ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/permit-purchase-oregons-tough...

    A federal trial over Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure opened Monday in Portland, marking a critical next step for one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation after months of ...