Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. 19 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the separation of church and state related to maintaining the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built in 1925 with private funds on private lands.
Certain ruling subject matter is handled by the National Commodity Specialist Division (NCSD), a section of R&R which is located in New York City. CBP issues new rulings regularly. They are available to the public at no cost through CBP desktop website CROSS or mobile-friendly website CustomsMobile, which provides advanced search options over ...
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) Police must obtain a warrant in order to search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) Government acquisition of cell-site records is a Fourth Amendment search, and, thus, generally requires a warrant.
Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22, 141 CLR 54 (HCA), is an Australian evidence law case, in which the admissibility of improperly gained evidence is examined. Like the similar R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, Bunning v Cross, the ruling of the High Court of Australia has been formulated as an exclusionary rule, namely the onus is on the accused to prove the misconduct and justify exclusion, [1] and ...
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.
Cross set aside the conviction after ruling that Jones’ defense team proved in a three-day hearing in August 2022 that police and prosecutors had withheld thousands of pages of evidence from ...
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that any state statute banning cross burning on the basis that it constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]