Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). [1]
The termination act provided that all state laws would apply to the tribe as if they were non-Indians. [11] In 1975, the Catawbas incorporated under South Carolina law as a non-profit. [12] By the time of the lawsuit, the town of Rock Hill, South Carolina had developed within the former 144,000-acre tract. [13]
This page was last edited on 19 December 2024, at 15:41 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
The first published Confederate imprint of secession, from the Charleston Mercury.. The South Carolina Declaration of Secession, formally known as the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, was a proclamation issued on December 24, 1860, by the government of South Carolina to explain its reasons for seceding from the ...
A date for a parole hearing has been set for convicted murderer Susan Smith more than 30 years after her two young sons were killed. On Monday, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole ...
The Constitution of Sri Lanka defines courts as independent institutions within the traditional framework of checks and balances. They apply Sri Lankan Law which is an amalgam of English common law, Roman-Dutch civil law and Customary Law; and are established under the Judicature Act No 02 of 1978 of the Parliament of Sri Lanka. [1]
Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill wrote a book detailing the Alex Murdaugh double-homicide trial. Now, she’s facing questions surrounding the ethics of her book.
Virginia v. Harris: 558 U.S. 978 (2009) Fourth Amendment • investigative stops • drunk driving: Scalia: Roberts dissented from the Court's denial of certiorari. The Virginia Supreme Court had ruled that a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he stopped a driver reported to be drunk and driving dangerously, because the officer did not first independently verify that he was ...