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. Although states have ...
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.
Summary Cavazos v. Smith: 10-1115: 2011-10-31 A jury found that a grandmother was guilty of assaulting her 7-week-old grandchild, which the jury found had died of shaken baby syndrome. The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) in reversing the verdict for insufficient evidence. KPMG LLP v ...
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 ...
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 .
After a summer full of grilled zucchini and yellow squash, now is the perfect time to switch things up and cook some winter squash. So what exactly sets summer and winter squash varieties apart?
Smith v. United States , 599 U.S. 236 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case pertaining to Article III and the Sixth Amendment . The Court held that a defendant may be retried following a jury trial conducted in the improper venue before a jury drawn from the incorrect district.
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!