enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Weeks v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States

    Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383 (1914) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . [ 1 ]

  3. List of United States Supreme Court cases by the White Court

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert: 231 U.S. 399 (1913) Weeks v. United States: 232 U.S. 383 (1914) establishment of the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence Ocampo v. United States: 234 U.S. 91 (1914) sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases: Shreveport Rate Case: 234 U.S. 342 (1914) Commerce clause, regulation of ...

  4. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 528

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Case name Citation Date decided Brancato v. Gunn: 528 U.S. 1: October 12, 1999 Antonelli v. Caridine: 528 U.S. 3: 1999: Judd v. United States Dist. Court for Western ...

  5. Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_legal...

    In the case Weeks v. Southern Bell (1969), Lorena Weeks claims that Southern Bell had violated her rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act when they denied her application for promotion to a higher paying position because she was a woman. She won her case in 1969 after several appeals. [citation needed]

  6. Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Tribal_Business...

    "The power of Congress over Indian Affairs may be of a plenary nature, but it is not absolute." US v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946), 329 U.S. 54. Since the exclusion of the Kansas Delawares from distribution under the act was "tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians," 430 U.S. 85-89, the exclusion does not offend the Due Process ...

  7. Social Security Fairness Act could restore benefits, but ...

    www.aol.com/social-security-fairness-act-could...

    "In essence, this money has been stolen from all of us for all these years," said an 84-year-old woman whose late husband's Social Security benefits were slashed. "It's not fair."

  8. Lorena Weeks - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorena_Weeks

    Lorena W. Weeks (born 1929) was the plaintiff in an important sex discrimination case, Weeks v. Southern Bell (1969). She claimed that Southern Bell had violated her rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act when they denied her application for promotion to a higher paying position because she was a woman.

  9. Stone v. Powell - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_v._Powell

    The majority reviewed the history of the exclusionary rule established in early 20th-century cases such as Weeks v. United States (1914) and Gouled v. United States, (1921) and applied to state courts in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The exclusionary rule is not a right provided by the Constitution itself, it is a judicially-created prophylactic rule to ...