Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the exchange of a gun for drugs constituted "use" of the firearm for purposes of a federal statute imposing penalties for "use" of a firearm "during and in relation to" a drug trafficking crime. In Watson v.
Smith v. United States , 568 U.S. 106 (2013), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America . [ 1 ] The case was argued on November 6, 2012, and decided on January 9, 2013.
Smith v. United States; Smith v. United States; Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977), a case about federal obscenity prosecutions; Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993), a case about exchanging guns for drugs; Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013), a case about members leaving a drug conspiracy group; Smith v.
Government prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team file papers asking Judge Aileen Cannon to reconsider her “clear error” in granting a request from lawyers for former President ...
Specifically, Cochran v. Kansas ruled in favor of a petitioner, who was a prisoner, who wished to file with the federal courts a writ of habeas corpus. Again, a similar instance preceded Bounds v. Smith. In Burns v. Ohio of 1959, the Supreme Court ruled that docket and other fees imposed on inmates were constitutional violations. [4] By 1963 ...
118 years ago on September 10, 1897, a 25-year-old London taxi driver named George Smith was the first person ever arrested for drunk driving. Smith slammed his cab into the side of a building and ...
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers could administer warrantless Breathalyzer tests to people suspected of driving drunk. The case, Birchfield v.North Dakota, effectively ...
Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 30, 2005. It concerned the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the disparate impact theory. The Court held that although the theory of disparate impact set forth in Griggs v.