Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography [1] (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child ...
Zobel v. Williams , 457 U.S. 55 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that distinguishing bounty benefits based on the length of time a person has resided in a state violates the Equal Protection Clause .
Williams v. Reed, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that state laws requiring exhaustion of state administrative remedies are preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act when they prevent a state court from hearing claims challenging delays in the administrative process.
United States v. Williams , 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury . It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a divorce decree granted by Nevada was not entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina because the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction over the parties. [1] It was a follow-up to the Supreme Court's decision in Williams v.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007), 556 U.S. 178 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits punitive damages, and ordered a lower court to reconsider its damages awards on that basis.
The Court of Appeal erred by dissecting the component parts of the designs, rather than considering their cumulative effect because it ignored the judge's findings of fact. The Court of Appeal erred in its belief that the defendant did not copy a substantial part of the expression of the Ixia design, but rather the idea.