Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. [1] While this principle had been outlined in other cases, such as Mapp v.
The government must prove 3rd party owners knew about criminal activity connected to their property, except in drug cases involving property valued above $50,000, when the owner will bear the burden of proof. [70] But lack of knowledge of the criminal activity has been held not to be a defense. See Bennis v. Michigan.
Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.
New York law allowing an unwed mother, but not an unwed father, a veto over adoption of their child violates the Equal Protection Clause: Addington v. Texas: 441 U.S. 418 (1979) Involuntarily committing a person to a mental hospital requires a clear and convincing standard of proof United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land: 441 U.S. 506 (1979)
DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [1] [2] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence. Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) A Texas law that criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct furthers no legitimate state interest and violates homosexuals' right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidates all of the remaining sodomy laws in the United States. Goodridge v.
The unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" were originally penned "Life, Liberty, and Property" by John Locke. Thomas Jefferson should have never altered Locke’s words.
The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil ...