Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.
The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the California District Court of Appeal. In an opinion by Justice Douglas, expressing the view of six members of the Court, it was held that the denial of counsel under the California rule of procedure stated above violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), was an important decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was argued February 15–16, 1967, and decided June 12, 1967. The case involved Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights, the taking of handwriting exemplars, in-court identifications and warrantless searches.
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Its decision is part of a long line of cases that eventually led to the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) As an Indian tribe and the United States are separate sovereigns, both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe can prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions without invoking double jeopardy if the actions of the accused violated Federal law ...
California and Hawaii can enforce bans on carrying guns in some public locations including bars and parks, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday, partly reversing lower court orders blocking the ...
Read more California race guides More election news Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
While reversing the lower court's First Amendment finding, the panel noted that the judge had not ruled on the APA-based challenge. It sent the case back to the district court to consider that issue.