Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs upheld, Reynolds v.United States, 192 F.2d 987 (3d Cir. 1951); cert. granted, 343 U.S. 918 (1952).: Holding; In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under Rule 34; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to produce the documents subjected the United States to liability to which Congress did not consent by the ...
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case which held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. [1] Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment's protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth ...
The state secrets privilege is related to, but distinct from, several other legal doctrines: the principle of non-justiciability in certain cases involving state secrets (the so-called "Totten Rule"); [6] certain prohibitions on the publication of classified information (as in New York Times Co. v. United States, the Pentagon Papers case); and the use of classified information in criminal ...
United States 565 U.S. 432 (2012) is a Supreme Court case regarding sex offender registration prior to enactment of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. [ 1 ] References
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 397 ... Date decided United States v. Kordel: 397 U.S. 1: 1970: United States v. Reynolds ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1876), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled on judicial jurisdiction in espionage cases. [1] The case was an important precursor to the court's 1953 decision in United States v. Reynolds wherein it recognized the State Secrets Privilege. [2]
Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) is an appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Initially, Lasercomb filed an action against Holiday Steel for breach of contract, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, unfair competition, and false designation of origin.