Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
By its text, the Seventh Amendment guarantees that in “[s]uits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” In construing this language, we have noted that the right is not limited to the “common-law forms of action recognized” when the Seventh Amendment was ratified. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 193 (1974 ...
Due process rights of public employees in workplace when alleging violations of First Amendment rights PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology: 511 U.S. 700 (1994) interpretation of §401 of the Clean Water Act: Farmer v. Brennan: 511 U.S. 825 (1994) civil liability under the Eighth Amendment for rape of a transgender ...
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), is a 1989 United States Supreme Court case concerning the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.In a majority opinion by William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that the Seventh Amendment guaranteed individuals the right to a jury trial if they are sued by a bankruptcy trustee seeking the recovery of an allegedly fraudulent ...
Constitutional law of the United States; Overview; Articles; Amendments; History; Judicial review; Principles; Separation of powers; Individual rights; Rule of law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The state of Oklahoma is violating federal law by unnecessarily committing people with mental illness and drug abuse disorders to psychiatric hospitals, the U.S. Justice ...
By Jonathan Stempel. NEW YORK (Reuters) -A federal judge on Tuesday declared unconstitutional a New York City law requiring food delivery companies to share customer data with restaurants.
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) Any state statute which bans 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. However, states may still ban cross burning with intent to intimidate due to the act’s uniquely hateful history. McConnell v.