Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld a Free Exercise claim based on the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that offered other prisoners adhering to conventional religious precepts."
Guilty plea in criminal case Oregon v. Mitchell: 400 U.S. 112 (1970) Age and voting rights in state elections Massachusetts v. Laird: 400 U.S. 886 (1970) Court declined to hear a case related to the constitutionality of the Vietnam War: Baird v. State Bar of Arizona: 401 U.S. 1 (1971) states cannot ban people from legal practice due to ...
In the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case Cruz v. Beto, the court upheld a Free Exercise discrimination claim against a Buddhist prisoner, Fred Cruz. [2] In early 1972, Beto announced that he planned to resign from TDC [3] but was still director on June 29, 1972, at the beginning of the lawsuit Ruiz v. Estelle. [1]
Back then, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, the progressive El Paso congressman with a penchant for the F-bomb and standing on countertops, was attempting to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz.
Pages in category "United States free exercise of religion case law" ... Cox v. United States (1947) Cruz v. Beto; D. Davis v. Beason; DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School;
[23] In the case of Miller v. Commissioner, the taxpayers objected to the use of social security numbers, arguing that such numbers related to the "mark of the beast" from the Bible. In its decision, the U.S. Court discussed the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but ruled against the taxpayers. [24] In Navajo Nation v.
The District Court had dismissed the case, with said dismissal being upheld by the three-judge appellate panel. [7] The case has now been reversed and sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. It is the first time that a temporary holding facility (like a courthouse lockup) has been deemed to be an "institution" under the Act.
The first application of the ministerial exception was in McClure v.Salvation Army, where the Fifth Circuit found in 1972 that an employee could not sue the Salvation Army for violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the "application of Civil Rights Act provisions relating to equal employment opportunities to relationship of Salvation Army and its officer who was ...