Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Application of Gault; 99 Ariz. 181 (1965), Supreme Court of Arizona, Rehearing denied Holding; Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County: Racial Segregation: 391 U.S. 430 (1968) "freedom-of-choice" desegregation plan held unconstitutional Witherspoon v. Illinois: 391 U.S. 510 (1968) constitutional status of a death-qualified jury: Pickering v. Board of Education: 391 U.S. 563 (1968) public employees' free speech rights Terry v ...
Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District 1931 66625 Cal. Super. first successful school desegregation court decision in U.S. history Powell v. Alabama: 1932 287 U.S. 45 access to counsel Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada: 1938 305 U.S. 337 states that provide a school to white students must provide in-state education to blacks Smith v.
The case established that "all children are entitled to free public education and training appropriate to their learning capacities". [2] Peter D. Roos, a former staff attorney at Harvard University's Center for Law and Education, described Mills as a "leading case" in a series of lawsuits that attempted to provide access to education for ...
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), [2] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. [3] [4] The ruling applied even to those persons who had committed murder as a juvenile, extending beyond Graham v.
A 10-year-old and 11-year-old boy – whose names have not been publicly released – have both been sentenced to two years in juvenile detention for their roles in 8-year-old Noah Bush's drowning
Barnette, had established that students did have some constitutional protections in public school. This case was the first time that the court set forth standards for safeguarding public school students' free speech rights. This case involved symbolic speech, which was first recognized in Stromberg v. California. [5]
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!