Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) contains both an “elements clause” and a “residual clause.” [8] The elements clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” and the residual clause defines an offense as a crime of violence if it, “by its nature, involves a ...
This file is a work of an officer or employee of the Supreme Court of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government , the file is in the public domain in the United States.
The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and consolidated with four other cases from other districts around the country into the famous Brown v. Board of Education case. In it, the US Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public education was, effectively, unconstitutional and illegal. [5]
Davis v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), a per curiam opinion; Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule) Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda) Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (charitable deductions under §170 of the Internal Revenue Code ...
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court Case from 1979. Its plaintiff was a hearing-impaired student who, after being denied access to the school's nursing department, filed a lawsuit against claiming violation of her rights under the Fourteenth amendment and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the ...
Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973), was a 1973 United States Supreme Court case concerning criminal procedure and collateral attacks on criminal convictions. The majority opinion, authored by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, held that when claims of unconstitutional jury discrimination are brought on postconviction collateral review, they are subject to the timeliness ...
Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule ". [ 1 ]