enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Hunter v. Erickson - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_v._Erickson

    Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case.. The question in the case was "whether the City of Akron, Ohio, has denied [a black citizen] the equal protection of its laws by amending the city charter to prevent the city council from implementing any ordinance dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing without the approval of the ...

  3. Powers v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_v._Ohio

    Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that re-examined the Batson Challenge. [1] Established by Batson v.Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Batson Challenge [2] prohibits jury selectors from using peremptory challenges on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sex.

  4. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_v._Ohio_Department_of...

    In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), the Supreme Court held that, in order to survive a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff alleging discrimination under Title VII must make a prima facie showing of discrimination, the first in a series of shifting burdens of proof known as McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting. [2]

  5. Moore v. City of East Cleveland - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._City_of_East...

    Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited Inez Moore, a black grandmother, from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional.

  6. Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

  7. After court-ordered review, Yost approves Ohio Voters Bill of ...

    www.aol.com/court-ordered-review-yost-approves...

    Attorney General Dave Yost approved the summary for the proposed amendment after the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the review in late October following Yost’s rejection based on the title. Yost had ...

  8. Ohio Senate goes after Supreme Court’s amendment ruling - AOL

    www.aol.com/ohio-senate-goes-supreme-court...

    That comes six weeks after the Ohio Supreme Court said ruling on the ... Ohio Senate goes after Supreme Court’s amendment ruling. J.D. Davidson. December 16, 2024 at 8:41 AM.

  9. LGBTQ rights in Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Ohio

    In May 1998, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but did not reach issue on "whether HIV can be transmitted via saliva." [35] The broad discriminatory nature of the application of Ohio's law was illustrated in State v. Thompson. In 1999, Eric Thompson had made a sexual pass at a jogger and, after the jogger declined, continued on his ...