Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs upheld, Reynolds v.United States, 192 F.2d 987 (3d Cir. 1951); cert. granted, 343 U.S. 918 (1952).: Holding; In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under Rule 34; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to produce the documents subjected the United States to liability to which Congress did not consent by the ...
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case which held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. [1] Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment's protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth ...
Reynolds v. United States 565 U.S. 432 (2012) is a Supreme Court case regarding sex offender registration prior to enactment of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. [ 1 ]
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) Religious belief or duty cannot be used as a defense against a criminal indictment. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) The Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment even though polygamy is part of several religious beliefs. Cantwell v.
Reynolds v. Sims, a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case concerning State legislature electoral districts; Reynolds v. United States, an 1878 U.S. Supreme Court case about polygamy and the use of religious duty as a defense to criminal prosecution; United States v. Reynolds, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the State Secrets Privilege
Case name Citation Date decided United States v. Reynolds: 345 U.S. 1: 1953: Alstate Constr. Co. v. Durkin: 345 U.S. 13: 1953: Thomas v. Hempt Bros. 345 U.S. 19
Case name Citation Date decided United States v. Kordel: 397 U.S. 1: 1970: United States v. Reynolds (1970) 397 U.S. 14: 1970: Czosek v. O'Mara: 397 U.S. 25
In United States v. Carll (1881), the Court defined the mens rea required under the counterfeiting statute. [67] In Ex parte Carll (1883), the Court held that the offense of counterfeiting was stated where the name of the original payee had been erased and replaced. [68] In United States v.