Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. [1]
The case was filed against President Barack Obama and several agencies within the executive branch, and sought confirmation that their constitutional and public trust rights had been violated by the government's actions, and sought an order to enjoin the defendants from continued violation of their rights and to develop a plan to mitigate ...
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880) The exclusion of individuals from juries solely because of their race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This was the first time that the Supreme Court reversed a state criminal conviction due to a violation of a constitutional provision concerning criminal procedure. Yick Wo v.
A federal judge apologized after he was found to have violated the judiciary’s code of conduct for publishing an op-ed earlier this year criticizing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over a ...
Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), [1] was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court "sustained respondents' claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." [9] The U.S. Supreme Court held as follows: [10]
The due process clauses of the Constitution are written in general terms: they apply to all people, in the land of the free. Opinion - Protect your constitutional rights: Don’t fall for the ...
After the Mobile decision held that claims under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required intent because the 15th amendment cases required it, an effects standard was added by the 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act allowing plaintiffs to establish a §2 violation if they could prove that the standard, practice, or procedure being ...