Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On August 1, 2011, Judge Timothy Black dismissed the SBA List's challenge to the Ohio law, holding that the federal court lacked jurisdiction since the billboards were never erected and the OEC never made a final ruling [12] [13] and denied a motion for summary judgment by SBA List in the defamation case, allowing Driehaus's defamation claims ...
On August 1, 2011, judge Timothy Black dismissed the SBA List's challenge to the Ohio law, holding that the federal court lacked jurisdiction since the billboards were never erected and the OEC never made a final ruling [128] and denied a motion for summary judgment by the List in the defamation case, allowing Driehaus's defamation claims ...
Case history; Prior: On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 707 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) Holding; A municipal ordinance that placed stricter limitations on the size and placement of religious signs than other types of signs was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on ...
The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court on April 12, 2010. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the matching funds provision of Arizona's law was analytically distinct from the millionaire's amendment. [7] [5] Two years earlier the Supreme Court had decided, in Davis v.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. [1] In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment (incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court upset the tradition against advertising ...
In Arizona, an older state Supreme Court decision had blocked enforcing the 1864 law shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a constitutional right ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. [1]