Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The appeals court’s 2-1 decision, handed down on August 30, 1995, held that a previous ruling by the state supreme court permitted disparities in education if the state provided for a basic education. [12] Two months later, the coalition appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. [12]
Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules allows for the certification of legal questions to the United States Supreme Court. The rule provides that "a United States court of appeals may certify to this Court a question or proposition of law on which it seeks instruction for the proper decision of a case. The certificate shall contain a statement of ...
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory maternity leave rules were unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Essentially, the rules were found to be too arbitrary (fixed dates chosen for no apparent reason) and irrebuttable (having no relation to individual medical conditions and with no way to ...
The Recovery Court of the Wayne County Juvenile and Probate Court earned final certification from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The state had made education a fundamental right by providing for free public education for all residents between 5 and 21. The Court stated that protected interests are created not by the Constitution but by its institutions (Board of Regents v. Roth). The Court held that a 10-day suspension was not a de minimis deprivation of property. It ...
The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio is the highest court in the U.S. state of Ohio, with final authority over interpretations of Ohio law and the Ohio Constitution. The court has seven members, a chief justice and six associate justices, who are elected at large by the voters of Ohio for six-year terms. The court has a total of 1,550 other ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: certain public-sector employees can have a property interest in their employment, per Constitutional Due Process. See Board of Regents v. Roth