enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Employment Division v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.

  3. Sohappy v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohappy_v._Smith

    Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969), [1] was a federal case heard by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, decided in 1969 and amended in 1975. It began with fourteen members of the Yakama who sued the U.S. state of Oregon over its fishing regulations.

  4. United States v. Oregon - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Oregon

    A case that was combined with Sohappy v. Smith (302 F.Supp. 899), a 1969 United States federal district court case concerning fishing rights of Native Americans. (See United States v. Washington for further info.) Gonzales v. Oregon, a 2006 United States Supreme Court case in which the United States Department of Justice unsuccessfully ...

  5. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com

    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!

  6. Brandeis brief - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_brief

    It is named after then-litigator and eventual associate Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who presented it in his argument for the 1908 US Supreme Court case Muller v. Oregon. The brief was submitted in support of a state law restricting the amount of hours women were allowed to work. [2]

  7. Fuller v. Oregon - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuller_v._Oregon

    Fuller v. Oregon , 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment 's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment 's Assistance of Counsel Clause .

  8. Supreme Court decision guide: Takeaways from the Trump ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/supreme-court-decision-guide...

    Case argued: April 22, 2024 The ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the justices reversed a ruling from a San Francisco-based appeals court that found public sleeping bans were a form of cruel and unusual ...

  9. Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the...

    [191] Considered with the text of the Presidential Electors Clause, and the opinions in Oregon v. Mitchell written by Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, and Potter Stewart (the last of which was joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Associate Justice Harry Blackmun), the Court concluded that the ...