Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, the Skidmore deference, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator ...
United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain sex offenses committed by federal supervised releases under as unconstitutional unless the charges are proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. [2]
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that, in line with Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), all facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence for a criminal offense must be submitted to and found true by a jury, not merely determined to be true at a judge's discretion.
The trial court and the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled he was eligible for a mandatory sentence of at least 15 years. He actually received a 13 1/2-year sentence for ...
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision [1] by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), [2] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. [3] [4] The ruling applied even to those persons who had committed murder as a juvenile, extending beyond Graham v.
The logical irrelevance of Jackson's admonition is plain in cases where courts duly note it but then proceed to reject its pro-government implications, as Goldberg did in Mendoza-Martinez and ...
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of qualified immunity. [1]The case centered on the application of mandatory sequencing in determining qualified immunity as set by the 2001 decision, Saucier v.