enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States v. Alvarez - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

    United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal.

  3. Stolen Valor Act of 2005 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005

    Struck down by United States v. Alvarez in a 6–3 decision on June 28, 2012 The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 , signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, [ 1 ] was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals .

  4. United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez...

    United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the respondent's forcible abduction from a foreign country, despite the existence of an extradition treaty with said country, does not prohibit him from being tried before a U.S. court for violations of American criminal laws.

  5. Get breaking Business News and the latest corporate happenings from AOL. From analysts' forecasts to crude oil updates to everything impacting the stock market, it can all be found here.

  6. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBP,_Inc._v._Alvarez

    IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), is a US labor law case of the a United States Supreme Court, interpreting the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.

  7. Habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_petitions_of...

    Al Odah v. United States affirmed on 11 March 2003. [4] On 28 June 2004, the Supreme Court decided against the Government in Rasul v. Bush. [5] Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a five-justice majority, held that the detainees had a statutory right to petition federal courts for habeas review. [6]

  8. United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._12_200-ft...

    United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973), was an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court that considered the question of whether the First Amendment required that citizens be allowed to import obscene material for their personal and private use at home, which was already held to be protected several years earlier.

  9. Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune...

    Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner , 460 U.S. 575 (1983), was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor overturning a use tax on paper and ink in excess of $100,000 consumed in any calendar year.