Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), [1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal "harmless error" rule must apply, instead of equivalent state rules, for reviewing trials where federally-protected rights had been violated.
In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violated a political party's First Amendment right of association. For the majority, Justice Scalia wrote that "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by ...
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 judgment striking down the California law as unconstitutional on the basis of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case, Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, by summer. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court to hear challenge to CA's move to phase ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes. Public employees cannot use labor law to sue employers ...
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.