Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), was a case [1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, under Sherbert v.
Tucker v. State of Indiana, 218 Ind. 614, 35 NE2d 270 (1941), was a landmark decision case by the Indiana Supreme Court that ruled that the Governor of Indiana is the chief executive of the State of Indiana and that the Indiana General Assembly has no authority to delegate or regulate authority that was granted to that office by the Constitution of Indiana.
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.
XIV; Indiana Public Law 109-2005 (SEA 483) Marion County Election Board , 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution .
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., No. 18-483, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1780 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of a 2016 anti-abortion law passed in the state of Indiana. Indiana's law sought to ban abortions performed solely on the basis of the fetus' gender, race, ethnicity ...
Illinois v. Missouri, 399 U.S. 146 (1970), was a per curiam decision determining a boundary line between the states of Illinois and Missouri. The case specifically assigned ownership of several islands in the Mississippi River. The court referred the case to a special master who filed a report, which was adopted by the court, decreeing that:
The invalidation of a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation after a veteran’s benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief permitting revision of that decision based on “clear and unmistakable error” under 38 U.S.C. §§5109A and 7111. Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco: 20-1775: 2022-6-15