Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes applies regardless of whether a defendant has waived the right to appeal. [1]
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.
Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the petitioner, Bryan Lankford, had been unconstitutionally sentenced to death in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
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.
Creech also did not file the appeal in a timely manner as required by Idaho law, wrote Richard Bevan, Idaho’s chief justice. ... Anderson argued that the court’s ruling on whether a 2022 U.S ...
Casey in its June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, [5] Idaho's trigger law banning abortion went into effect on August 25, 2022. [6] [7] On January 5, 2023, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Idaho Constitution does not confer a right to an abortion, rejecting a challenge to the states' abortion laws by Planned ...
The Idaho Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Boise neighborhood association’s fight to stop the shelter. Idaho’s top court just heard arguments against a new Boise homeless shelter. What ...
In the United States, prosecutions for breach of the peace are subject to constitutional constraints. In Terminiello v.City of Chicago (1949), the United States Supreme Court held that an ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First ...