Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The holding is a court's determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case.In other words: under this law, with these facts, this result. It is the same as a 'decision' made by the judge; however "decision" can also refer to the judge's entire opinion, containing, for example, a discussion of facts, issues, and law as well as the holding.
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Palmer v. Hudson, 697 F.2d 1220 (4th Cir. 1983); cert. granted, 463 U.S. 1206 (1983).: Holding; Prison inmates have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and destruction of property did not constitute a Due Process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment because Virginia had adequate state ...
Had prior courts never gone against precedent, for example, "segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants". Roberts's concurrence recited a plethora of case law in which the court had ruled against precedent.
Case history; Prior: Conviction affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, 56 F.3d 75 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 516 U.S. 1110 (1996). Holding; Where the prior conviction is an element of the crime charged, evidence of a defendant's prior conviction may not be admitted if the defendant is willing to concede to the fact of the conviction. Court membership
Case history; Prior: 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N.E.2d 484 (1998) Holding; The police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop because nervous, evasive behavior, like fleeing a high crime area upon noticing police officers, is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion to justify a stop: Court membership; Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.
The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed, holding that the law did not violate Michael's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court of Appeal denied rehearing, and the Supreme Court of California declined to hear the case. [4]
(The Center Square) – The Washington Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday morning in a high-profile gun rights case that may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves a ...