Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives". [30]
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the judgment, and ...
Nov. 17—There is a difference between ethics and the law. But that doesn't mean the two don't coexist. Laws are codified rules that spell out what can happen, what should happen, what ...
Supreme Court adopted a new code of ethics amid mounting public pressure after a year of controversies but did not explicitly state how it would be enforced
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights.The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children.
Until Monday, every judge in the country — state and federal — was bound by an ethics code, except for the most important jurists: United States Supreme Court justices.
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from their position. [1]