Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In England, discovery finally became available in the common law courts by the mid-1850s, after Parliament enacted the Evidence Act 1851 and the Common Law Procedure Act 1854. The right to discovery in the common law courts was "exercised somewhat more narrowly" than in chancery, but the point was that a litigant at common law no longer needed ...
The Georgia Bill of Rights was ratified, along with the Georgia Constitution of 1861, soon after the State of Georgia seceded from the Union on 18 January 1861. [1] Prior to the creation of the Bill of Rights, Georgia's previous four Constitutions protected only a relative few civil liberties. [1]
The court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the rights of Georgia citizens because free people have the right to self-defense. The fact that Georgia did not have a constitutional amendment did not empower the Georgia legislature to infringe on the right. The right is fundamental, and no free society ...
Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.
SAVANNAH, Georgia — A 38-year-old woman is suing the fertility clinic she used to conceive a child after the wrong embryo was implanted in her, resulting in a shocking discovery as soon as the ...
The lawyer who first alleged a personal relationship Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade walked Georgia lawmakers through how she came to find out about ...
Illinois (1988), the Court rejected a challenge to witness preclusion rules, holding that the Clause did not provide for an "absolute" right for defendants. [13] The Court held that "The Compulsory Process Clause provides [the defendant] with an effective weapon, but it is a weapon that cannot be used irresponsibly". [ 14 ]