Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.
Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969), [1] was a federal case heard by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, decided in 1969 and amended in 1975. It began with fourteen members of the Yakama who sued the U.S. state of Oregon over its fishing regulations.
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court spelled out standards for "effectiveness" in the constitutional right to legal counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. [1]
Case argued: April 22, 2024 The ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the justices reversed a ruling from a San Francisco-based appeals court that found public sleeping bans were a form of cruel and unusual ...
De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies the First Amendment right of freedom of assembly to the individual U.S. states. [1]
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]
It begins with the 1905 court case Lochner v. New York, which found that a law forbidding bakers to work more than 60 hours a week, or 10 hours in a day, interfered with "right of contract." The ...
Smith v. United States , 599 U.S. 236 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case pertaining to Article III and the Sixth Amendment . The Court held that a defendant may be retried following a jury trial conducted in the improper venue before a jury drawn from the incorrect district.