Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump on Tuesday filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief in his bid for criminal immunity for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, arguing that a former president ...
Former President Donald Trump and several of his co-defendants charged in the Georgia election interference case submit an application to appeal Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling allowing Fulton ...
Aug. 17—MITCHELL — The following cases were among those heard Friday, July 18, during a circuit court session at the Davison County Public Safety Center, with Judge Chris Giles presiding ...
Birchfield was a consolidation of three cases: Birchfield v.North Dakota, Bernard v.Minnesota, and Beylund v.Levi.Birchfield was charged with violation of a North Dakota statute for refusing to submit to blood alcohol content testing; Bernard was charged with a violation of a Minnesota statute for refusing to submit to breath alcohol testing; Beylund underwent a blood alcohol test consistent ...
The First and Eleventh District Courts of Appeals in Ohio require that under each issue presented for review, the brief shall list alphabetically, in a further indented subparagraph, the cases cited in support of the issue, followed by a list of the statutes, rules, and other authorities cited in support of the issue. [6] [7]
Skrmetti (Docket No. 23-477) is a pending United States Supreme Court case on whether bans on transgender medical procedures (including puberty blockers and hormone therapy) for minors under the age of 18 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A look at where the various court cases against President-elect Donald Trump stand, and how they may — or may not — be affected by his taking the oath of office on Jan. 20.
Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about government seizure of property for unpaid taxes, when the value of the property seized is greater than the tax debt. A unanimous court held that the surplus value is protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.