enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Napue v. Illinois - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napue_v._Illinois

    Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of ...

  3. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Corp._v...

    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

  4. Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

    A "burden of proof" is a party's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production (providing enough evidence on an issue so that the trier-of-fact decides it rather than in a peremptory ruling like a directed verdict) and the burden of persuasion (standard of proof such as preponderance of the evidence).

  5. Giglio v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giglio_v._United_States

    Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]

  6. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celotex_Corp._v._Catrett

    Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.Written by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, the decision of the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need show only that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case.

  7. Huddleston v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddleston_v._United_States

    Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before admitting evidence of extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts should assess the evidence's sufficiency under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b). Under 104(b), "[w]hen the relevancy of ...

  8. United States v. Hubbell - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell

    United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. [1]

  9. United States v. Williams (1992) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Williams...

    United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.