Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act); Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall) The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence ...
Miller v. United States , 357 U.S. 301 (1958), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court , which held that one could not lawfully be arrested in one's home by officers breaking in without first giving one notice of their authority and purpose.
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court that held that bank records are not subject to protection under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] The case, along with Smith v. Maryland, established the principle of the third-party doctrine in relation to privacy rights.
United States v. James Miller , 471 U.S. 130 (1985) was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fifth Amendment 's Grand Jury Clause is not violated if a federal defendant is found guilty by a trial jury without having found "all" parts of an indictment proved.
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which clarified that when proposing for the ratification of an amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to Article V thereof, if the Congress of the United States chooses not to set a deadline by which the proposed amendment must be acted upon by the requisite three-fourths of state ...
The majority also found that United States v. Miller supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In Miller, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment ...
Case name Citation Date decided Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n, Inc. 425 U.S. 1: 1976: Middendorf v. Henry: 425 U.S. 25: 1976: Carey v.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland found the law valid and that Miller Brothers Co. was liable for the tax. [2] Miller Brothers Co. appealed. Maryland's tax was a use tax; a 1944 Supreme Court case, McLeod v. J.E. Dilworth Co., [3] had ruled that a state could not levy a sales tax on sales made by a merchant in another state.