Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On an appeal to the California Supreme Court, Chapman and Teale argued a range of issues, which were generally flimsy legal arguments (including their right to a speedy trial, particular instructions issued to the jury, and whether various items should have been allowed as evidence), and the Court ruled against them on almost all of them.
The California Reporter of Decisions is a reporter of decisions supervised by the Supreme Court of California responsible for editing and publishing the published opinions of the judiciary of California. The Supreme Court's decisions are published in official reporters known as California Reports and the decisions of the Courts of Appeal are ...
A small group of lawyers later recovered and compiled all the unreported opinions filed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Commission before that point, which were published in a separate seven-volume reporter called California Unreported Cases starting in 1913. [2] [31] Despite its name, those cases are citable as precedent. [32]
Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press.The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book's content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. [1]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Each volume was edited by one of the Reporters of Decisions of the Supreme Court. As of the beginning of the October 2019 Term, there were 574 bound volumes of the U.S. Reports. There were another 14 volumes worth of opinions available as "slip opinions", [1] which are preliminary versions of the opinion published on the Supreme Court's website ...
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that struck down a 2005 California law banning the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision.
Justices on the state’s highest court unanimously ruled the measure known as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” amounts to an illegal constitutional revision.