Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Agents of the federal or state government may be permitted by the court to intervene when a party to a case relies on a federal or state statute or executive order, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, for its claim or defense. In both intervention of right and permissive intervention, the applicant must make a timely application to be heard.
Gideon appeared in court alone, as he was too poor to afford to hire a defense lawyer. The following conversation took place between Gideon and the judge: [2] The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel to ...
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty, and thereby waive the panoply of trial rights, including the right to counsel.
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest".
One reason the Court may not have accepted the case is that doing so might force the Court to develop a uniform nationwide test for the issuance of preliminary injunctions under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has consistently denied review in every case raising that possibility for the past few decades, which is why ...
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case [1] [2] [3] concerning same-sex marriage.The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Local coroners and their staffs were helpful in identifying victims and providing records. Family members were located independently and relayed information about their loved ones. Court documents also proved useful, as did corrections department records, jail wardens, defense attorneys and corrections officials from Kentucky and Ohio.
The Barnett family filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging that the regulation violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the freedoms of speech and religion under the First Amendment, The District Court enjoined enforcement against students. Due to the case's ...