Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Cohen v. California. 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.
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), is a landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States that is most notable for the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters if defendants claim that their constitutional rights have been violated. [1]
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1][2] Beginning in 2013, the decision was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court ...
Pure Theory of Law. Pure Theory of Law is a book by jurist and legal theorist Hans Kelsen, first published in German in 1934 as Reine Rechtslehre, and in 1960 in a much revised and expanded edition. The latter was translated into English in 1967 as Pure Theory of Law. [1] The title is the name of his general theory of law, Reine Rechtslehre.
A sitting president of the United States has both civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. [a] Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute. [1][2] The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil ...
Nuisance. v. t. e. Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land", [1] and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially ...
The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, [2] holding that under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1291) such an appeal would be permitted only if:
Some cases from this period raised questions about the lawfulness of nationwide injunctions or closely related remedies. Scott v. Donald (1897) — James Donald sued the state of South Carolina for confiscating his alcohol under a statute he argued violated the federal Constitution. [11]