Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
They also passed three major reform bills in an attempt to further comply with the McCleary ruling. [6] Despite these changes, the Supreme Court did not find the State in compliance. On January 9, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order setting a deadline of April 30, 2014 for the legislature to come up with an adequate funding plan. [7]
Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent ...
Multiple concurrences and dissents within a case are numbered, with joining votes numbered accordingly. Justices frequently join multiple opinions in a single case; each vote is subdivided accordingly. An asterisk ( * ) in the Court's opinion denotes that it was only a majority in part or a plurality.
Tri-City Herald Letters to the Editor 03/29/2023. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
“These weapons of war, assault weapons, have no reason other than mass murder,” Inslee said. "Their only purpose is to kill humans as rapidly as possible in large numbers.”
Initiative 1639 was a Washington state ballot initiative concerning firearms regulation that was passed into law on November 6, 2018. The initiative altered the gun laws in Washington by defining the term "semiautomatic assault rifle" to include all semiautomatic rifles, [1] [2] raising the minimum age for purchasing semiautomatic rifles from 18 to 21.
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.
A leading court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is the 1998 California 4th District Court of Appeal decision Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. [18] In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland-based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract ...