Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that under the existing statutory scheme, federal question jurisdiction could not be predicated on a plaintiff's anticipation that the defendant would raise a federal statute as a defense.
Case history; Prior: 658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981): Holding; The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification.
Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created federal courts to hear such cases, it initially chose not to allow the lower federal courts to possess federal question jurisdiction for fear ...
This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness (either because the statute is a penal statute with criminal or quasi-criminal civil penalties, or because the interest invaded by the vague law is sufficiently fundamental to subject the statute to strict scrutiny by a court determining ...
The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. 1. St. 2; Latin: Statutum Wynton̄), also known as the Statute of Winton, was a statute enacted by King Edward I of England that reformed the system of Watch and Ward of the Assize of Arms of 1252, and revived the jurisdiction of the local courts. [1] [2] It received royal assent on 8 October 1285.
Related: 300 Trivia Questions and Answers to Jumpstart Your Fun Game Night. ... Today's Connections Game Answers for Wednesday, January 8, 2025: 1. SECTION: BRANCH, DIVISION, LIMB, WING 2.
A state law that excludes citizens from jury service on account of race or color is a denial of the equal protection of the law; and; It is within Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to provide for the removal to federal court those cases arising under state law where that state's law denies a party the equal protection of their rights.
What if I have questions or need help with AOL Mail? You can find instant answers on our AOL Mail help page . Should you need additional assistance we have experts available around the clock at 800-730-2563.