Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [1]
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. [2]
The People of the State of California v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 CAL. 4TH 497, 917 P.2D 628 (Cal. 1996), was a landmark case in the state of California that gave California Superior Court judges the ability to dismiss a criminal defendant's "strike prior" pursuant to the California Three-strikes law, thereby avoiding a 25-to-life minimum sentence.
On June 10, 2014, the court ruled that the statutes at issue produced disparities that "shock the conscience" [11] and violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. [12] As background, the court began the Vergara opinion with a discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v.
Defendant convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court; conviction affirmed by California Court of Appeal; California Supreme Court declined review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, 535 U.S. 969 (2002). Holding; California's three strikes law does not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The court determined that the material at issue in Miller's case was pornography that could have been banned under the Roth precedent. [1] However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression", and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited."
Oyama v. State of California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948) was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to Fred Oyama, a U.S. citizen in whose name his father, a Japanese citizen, had purchased land.
The California Constitution at the time said (in Article I § 13), "in any criminal case, whether the defendant testifies or not, his failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be commented upon by the court and by counsel, and may be considered by the court or the jury."