Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An inconsistency may arise where the Commonwealth law, expressly or impliedly, intends to cover the field completely, and supersede or exclude any other laws in that area. If the State law then enters that field, or the part of the field covered by the Commonwealth law, then the State law will be inconsistent, even though it may be possible to ...
A hearing about competency to stand trial is required under the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States. [2] BOR, 14th 1972 Jackson v. Indiana: Criminal defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial are not permitted to be held indefinitely.
[4] [5] Over the next three years until his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, Jacobson argued that subjecting him to a fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing vaccination was an invasion of his liberty, the law was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive", and that one should not be subjected to the law if he or she ...
Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government ...
The Model Rules address many topics which are found in state ethics rules, including the client-lawyer relationship, duties of a lawyer as advocate in adversary proceedings, dealings with persons other than clients, law firms and associations, public service, advertising, and maintaining the integrity of the profession. Respect of client ...
It is a complex case with a 50-count indictment. But the most interesting aspect is commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence: The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our ...
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), [1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.
The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, [1] and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on " cruel and unusual punishments ".