Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is often simply referred to as “Act 425” and contractual agreements entered into pursuant to this statute are frequently called 425 Agreements. The purpose of Act 425 is to provide for a means for two local units of government to share tax revenues resulting from new or expanding development in the areas of their jurisdiction .
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 was constitutional, which permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially a danger to society.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 98-417), informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, is a 1984 United States federal law that established the modern system of generic drug regulation in the United States.
Case name Citation Date decided Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n, Inc. 425 U.S. 1: 1976: Middendorf v. Henry: 425 U.S. 25: 1976: Carey v.
The general purpose of Cable Communications Act of 1984 was to define jurisdictional boundaries for regulating cable television systems among federal, state and local authorities. [2] After 1984 Act had been enacted, the failure to balance the unequal growth within provider and subscriber has become problematic.
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court that held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] The case, along with Smith v. Maryland, established the principle of the third-party doctrine in relation to privacy rights.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (codified at 47 U.S.C. ch. 5, subch. V–A) was an act of Congress passed on October 30, 1984 to promote competition and deregulate the cable television industry. The act established a national policy for the regulation of cable television communications by federal, state, and local authorities.
On June 25, 1984, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 6–0 [a] decision in favor of the EPA that reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. In an opinion written by justice John Paul Stevens , the Court ruled that the ambiguous meaning of the term "source" in the Clean Air Act indicated that Congress had delegated to the EPA the power to make ...