Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case name Citation Date decided Buckley v. Valeo: 424 U.S. 1: 1976: Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona: 424 U.S. 295: 1976: Mathews v. Eldridge: 424 U.S. 319
Paul v. Davis , 424 U.S. 693 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a sharply divided Court held that the plaintiff, whom the local police chief had named an "active shoplifter," suffered no deprivation of liberty resulting from injury to his reputation. [ 1 ]
Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could not limit pharmacists' right to provide information about prescription drug prices. [1] This was an important case in determining the application of the First Amendment to ...
R v R [1991] UKHL 12 is a House of Lords judgement in which R was convicted of attempting to rape his wife but appealed his conviction on the grounds of a marital rape exemption whereby R claimed a husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife as his wife had given consent to sexual intercourse through the contract of marriage which she could not withdraw.
In the Southwestern United States, water scarcity was (and remains) a critical problem. The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, was a statute enacted by United States Congress in 1952 [2] allowing the United States to be joined as a defendant in certain suits concerning the adjudication or administration of rights to use of waters.
United Brands v Commission (1976) Case 27/76 is an EU competition legal case concerning abuse of a dominant position in a relevant product market.The case involved the infamous "green banana clause".
The Nation of Islam is an African-American religious group which was founded in the 1930s, came to prominence in the 1960s with members such as Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X, and came to prominence in the United Kingdom in the 1990s during the public inquiry that followed the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
The test, as set out in R v Bateman 19 Cr. App. R.8 and Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576, confirmed that there needed to be in existence a breach of duty of care where the serious and obvious risk of death was reasonably foreseeable and that the breach or omission in question caused actual death and that the conduct of the defendant, when all the ...