Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the exchange of a gun for drugs constituted "use" of the firearm for purposes of a federal statute imposing penalties for "use" of a firearm "during and in relation to" a drug trafficking crime.
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and written by Justice Antonin Scalia that established the test used to determine whether a hearsay statement is "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes.
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. Although states have ...
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) contains both an “elements clause” and a “residual clause.” [8] The elements clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” and the residual clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it, “by its nature, involves a ...
Smith v. United States , 568 U.S. 106 (2013), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America . [ 1 ] The case was argued on November 6, 2012, and decided on January 9, 2013.
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel." [1] Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v.
The Supreme Court decided two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a group headed by Edward Blum, a conservative legal strategist who has spent years fighting affirmative action.
The Circuit Court largely relied on precedent set in Smith v.Maryland and U.S. v. Miller, which established the Third Party Doctrine.. By relying on this precedent, the court said that Davis had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his Cell Site Location Data, as it did not meet the two questions put forth in Katz to establish reasonable expectation.