Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The second paragraph of Blackmun's dissent noted that the Supreme Court of California interpreted section 415 in In re Bushman, 1 Cal.3d 767, 463 P.2d 727 [28] (Cal, 1970), which was decided after the Court of Appeal of California's decision in Cohen v. California and the Supreme Court of California's denial of review. The appeal court's ruling ...
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [ 1 ] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. [ 2 ][ 3 ] The case arose from inconsistent rulings on cell phone searches from ...
t. e. A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment. Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time as the majority opinion and any concurring opinions, and are also ...
Mosk. Moore v. Regents of the University of California was a landmark Supreme Court of California decision. Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. In 1976, John Moore was treated for hairy cell leukemia by physician David Golde, a cancer researcher at the ...
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California 's determinate sentencing law.
In Nollan v.California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional.
Mosk. Dissent. Clark, joined by McComb. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), [ 1 ] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal "harmless error" rule must apply, instead of equivalent state rules, for reviewing trials where federally-protected rights had been violated.