Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zauderer, 10 Ohio St. 3d 44, 461 N.E.2d 883 (1984); probable jurisdiction noted, 469 U.S. 813 (1984).: Holding; A State may require advertisers to include "purely factual and uncontroversial" disclosures without violating the First Amendment rights of the advertiser as long as the disclosure is in the State's interest in preventing ...
Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution . Factual background
Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal process crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, [1] even by merely ...
42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows suits for violations of federal statutory law Adams v. Texas: 448 U.S. 38 (1980) Juror oaths regarding factual deliberations in capital cases Ohio v. Roberts: 448 U.S. 56 (1980) Hearsay is admissible under the Sixth Amendment if it bears particular guarantees of trustworthiness; overruled by Crawford v. Washington
Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447 at 476 (1978) (Marshall, concurring in the judgment, emphasis in original) Justice Rehnquist, on the other hand, believed that states should have even more leeway to regulate lawyers than the majority allowed.
Laws applied Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , SEC Rule 10b-5 Basic Inc. v. Levinson , 485 U.S. 224 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the " fraud-on-the-market theory " as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases.
Ohio law violates the rights of people with disabilities who rely on others to return their absentee ballots, a federal judge ruled.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech.