Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Pennsylvania law that requires out-of-state companies to agree to appear in Pennsylvania courts as a prerequisite to registering for business in the state is consistent with Due Process.
Campos-Chaves v. Garland (Docket No. 22-674) was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States.The case asks whether the government may comply with its obligations under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) and (2) when it provides an initial notice to appear with a date and location "to be determined" and a subsequent notice with that information included.
It was incumbent on the court that tried the case to verify that [Maleki] had been informed of the pending case before proceeding to hold the trial in absentia. Failing evidence that the court did so, the [HRC] is of the opinion that [Maleki's] right to be tried in his presence was violated. [21] In 2009, a former CIA station chief and two ...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring door-to-door salespersons ("solicitors") to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on religious exercise.
The appeals court ruled that, in admitting the 21 extraneous cases, she had willingly admitted "prejudicial evidence." A three member appeals court panel shelved the conviction, and in February, 2016, the full court backed the decision of the panel. The Philadelphia County prosecutors appealed that decision to the State Supreme Court.
The High Court's jurisdiction encompassed cases brought up from Pennsylvania's supreme court, register's courts, and state admiralty court. The establishing statute recited, "the good people of this commonwealth, by their happy deliverance from their late dependent condition [on Britain], and by becoming free and sovereign are released from ...
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the trial court ruled against Muniz, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court decision and ordered a new trial, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear the case. [8] At issue in this case is whether the statements from Muniz were properly admissible at his trial.
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the constitutionality of two recurring Christmas and Hanukkah holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh.