Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
King v. Smith; Levy v. Louisiana; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - Amicus curiae for John W. Terry; Washington v. Lee; 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) - represented Clarence Brandenburg; Gregory v. Chicago; Street v. New York; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) - represented the ...
Lucy v. Adams: Racial Segregation: 350 U.S. 1 (1955) established the right of all citizens to be accepted as students at the University of Alabama: Corn Products Refining Co. v. Commissioner: 350 U.S. 46 (1955) Hedging futures gains are ordinary if on raw materials United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. 350 U.S. 332 (1956)
The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot). [1]
An Ohio federal judge dismissed the case last year, saying she had not shown the "background circumstances" to support her discrimination claim. The 6th Circuit upheld that decision last December.
Republican Attorney General Dave Yost told the Ohio Supreme Court on Monday that rushing a lawsuit filed against him by a coalition of civil rights organizations seeking to place a package of ...
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974) Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1974) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977) Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (1978 ...
The Ohio Supreme Court should step in on behalf of voters and order a rewrite of ballot language for a fall redistricting measure that “may be the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive, and ...