Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), [1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in ...
Argument: Oral argument: Reargument: Reargument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Holding; The cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment did not apply to corporal punishment as a disciplinary practice in public schools, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not require notice or a hearing prior to imposition of such punishment, as the state's ...
The disciplinary case focused on Amy McGowan’s actions during the trial of Ricky Kidd, who was wrongfully convicted and spent 23 years in prison. Prosecutor faces disciplinary hearing for role ...
The United States Constitution and its amendments comprise hundreds of clauses which outline the functioning of the United States Federal Government, the political relationship between the states and the national government, and affect how the United States federal court system interprets the law. When a particular clause becomes an important ...
The Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791.It is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done ... that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. ( November 2009 ) ( Learn how and when to remove this message ) In United States law , the Garrity warning is a notification of rights usually administered by federal, state, or local investigators to their employees who may be the subject of an internal investigation.
Right to a clear notice of charges in the disciplinary process; In disciplinary measures students are entitled to the provision of a definite charge. [10] [89] [114] [115] Right to a prompt notice of charges in the disciplinary process; Students are entitled to a prompt notice of charges, e.g., ten days before the hearing. [89] [116] [117]