Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals blasted the FCC's attempts to regulate broadband internet, but state laws in California and New York remain intact. Federal court decision won't change California ...
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1] This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner. [2] [3]
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice. [1] The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to ...
A federal appeals court ruled this week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked the authority to restore certain net neutrality rules last year, handing a blow to FCC Democrats and ...
A three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in an industry lawsuit that accused the agency of exceeding its powers in bringing back the net ...
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]
Police officers cannot detain someone on the street just because that person acts furtively to avoid contact with them, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.