enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Employment Division v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.

  3. Fact-check: Has the Supreme Court ever taken away a ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/fact-check-supreme-court-ever...

    A second instance multiple scholars referenced was the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, which found that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause did not contain the right to religious ...

  4. Sohappy v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohappy_v._Smith

    The federal court combined the case with another case, United States v. Oregon, in which the U.S. federal government sued the state along with the Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes. [2] The ruling issued by judge Robert C. Belloni in 1969 is known as the "Belloni Decision" or the "Fair Share Doctrine."

  5. Premo v. Moore - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premo_v._Moore

    Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim that a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of ...

  6. Oregon v. Mitchell - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell

    Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]

  7. Oregon defendants without a lawyer must be released from jail ...

    www.aol.com/news/oregon-defendants-without...

    A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that Oregon defendants must be released from jail after seven days if they don’t have a defense attorney. In its decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit ...

  8. Bunting v. Oregon - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunting_v._Oregon

    Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426 (1917), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ten-hour work day, which was accepted for both men and women, [1] but the state minimum-wage laws were not changed until 20 years later.

  9. Oregon v. Guzek - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Guzek

    Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not grant criminal defendants facing the death penalty the right to introduce new evidence of their innocence during sentencing that was not introduced during trial.