Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. [1] In doing so, the Court extended the holding of New York v.
O'Toole left the Eleventh District at the end of her term in February 2011 after being defeated in the 2010 election, and founded award-winning, On Demand Interpretation Services, LLC, an entrepreneurial start up that provides certified interpretation in 170 languages and American sign-language to public entities and their support networks. [1]
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech.
The first is a separation of powers issue, specifically, who has jurisdiction over court records. Based on a 2019 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, "the Rules of Superintendence are the sole vehicle by ...
The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in a case filed by The Dispatch against Columbus police. The Dispatch filed the lawsuit last year after Columbus police declined to release ...
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that residents delivering ballots on behalf of voters with disabilities cannot use drop boxes but instead must go inside the county board ...
After the Supreme Court decision, the SBA List challenged the constitutionality of the Ohio law in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission. On September 11, 2014, Judge Timothy Black struck down the law as unconstitutional. [25]
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".