Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States.
Amy Coney Barrett called Marbury v. Madison a “super precedent.” Is that something we should reconsider?
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).
Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally operates to suppress – i.e. prevent the introduction at trial of – evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights. "Suppression of evidence, however, has always been [the court's] last resort, not [its] first impulse.
The majority opinion went on to decide that the factors determining whether an act by a judge is a judicial act "relate to the nature of the act itself": whether it is a function normally performed by a judge; and; whether the parties dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. [13] In the view of the majority, Judge Stump's action passed ...
This is the backdrop for Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion Tuesday arguing that the Supreme Court may need to reevaluate the confines of that legal doctrine—absolute prosecutorial immunity ...
Maryland, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense. The only requirements being that the evidence is favorable to the defendant and material. [1]: 4 Thirteen years later, the Supreme Court defined what it meant for evidence to be material in a case called United States v
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers could administer warrantless Breathalyzer tests to people suspected of driving drunk. The case, Birchfield v.North Dakota, effectively ...