Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Wisconsin v. Kizer is a murder case in which the deceased's alleged sex trafficking of the defendant was raised as an affirmative defense, for the first time in Wisconsin and possibly anywhere in the United States. [1]
United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), also known as the Keith Case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.
In his book Critics Dilemma (1966), Dingwall supported Hall's criticism of the spiritualist William Crookes and the medium Florence Cook. [29] [30] He investigated the mediumship of Eusapia Palladino and came to the conclusion she was "vital, vulgar, amorous and a cheat." [31] In 1920, Dingwall with V. J. Woolley tested the medium Eva Carrière in
United States v. Jewell , 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976), is a criminal case in which the court held that willful ignorance satisfied the requirements of knowledge of a fact. [ 1 ] The holding gave rise to the jury instruction known as the ostrich instruction .
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. [1]
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), [1] upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Dickerson is regarded as a significant example of a rare departure by the Court from the principle of party presentation. [2]
United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) is an 1878 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on civil procedure, specifically res judicata, in cases heard at equity.A unanimous Court affirmed an appeal of a decision by the District Court for California upholding a Mexican-era land claim, holding that collateral estoppel bars untimely motions to set aside the verdict where the purportedly ...
United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the U.S. Const., Amend. V protection against double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial of a defendant, who had previously requested a mistrial. [1]