Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case which held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. [1] Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment's protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth ...
Reynolds v. Sims , 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population.
The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.
The Supreme Court justices’ ruling on the first and most significant case Wednesday will likely give the final answer on whether the law’s revival window violates the North Carolina State ...
This case was decided by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington while riding circuit in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It is notable for Washington asserting the existence of cognizable rights within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities Clause that are nowhere within the Constitution's text.
After N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby’s opinion in Harper v, Hall, Section 10 should be changed to include an asterisk, saying, “but it’s fine for elections to be rigged, free ...
After decades of court proceedings, in 2020, the Superior Court overseeing the case ordered the state to draw up and fund a remedial plan, now estimated to cost $6 billion over eight years.
Case history; Prior: Judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs upheld, Reynolds v.United States, 192 F.2d 987 (3d Cir. 1951); cert. granted, 343 U.S. 918 (1952).: Holding; In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under Rule 34; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to produce the documents subjected the United States to liability to which Congress did not consent by the ...