Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969), [1] was a federal case heard by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, decided in 1969 and amended in 1975. It began with fourteen members of the Yakama who sued the U.S. state of Oregon over its fishing regulations.
Case name Opinion Decided Summary Abbott v. United States: 09-479: 2010-11-15 Mandatory minimum sentences under federal sentencing law Los Angeles County v. Humphries: 09-350: 2010-11-30 Section 1983 actions are limited to those caused by a municipality's "policy or custom" regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks monetary or prospective relief.
A case that was combined with Sohappy v. Smith (302 F.Supp. 899), a 1969 United States federal district court case concerning fishing rights of Native Americans. (See United States v. Washington for further info.) Gonzales v. Oregon, a 2006 United States Supreme Court case in which the United States Department of Justice unsuccessfully ...
Apodaca v. Oregon: 406 U.S. 404 (1972) State juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity Jackson v. Indiana: 406 U.S. 715 (1972) Indefinite detention of a defendant incompetent to stand trial violates due process and equal protection: Aikens v. California: 406 U.S. 813 (1972) Mootness in a death penalty case The Bremen v. Zapata Off ...
Oregon, Georgia, Boise State and Arizona State claimed the top four seeds while SMU edged out Alabama for the final at-large spot in the debut 12-team College Football Playoff.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Fuller v. Oregon , 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment 's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment 's Assistance of Counsel Clause .