Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Cross-examination is a key component of a trial and the topic is given substantial attention during courses on trial advocacy. [2] The opinions of a jury or judge are often changed if cross-examination casts doubt on the witness. On the other hand, a credible witness may reinforce the substance of their original statements and enhance the judge ...
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [1]
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.
This decision was voided by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, allowing taxes on unearned income to be implemented without apportionment. Swift and Company v. United States , 196 U.S. 375 (1905) Congress can prohibit local business practices in order to regulate interstate commerce because those practices, when combined, form a "stream of ...
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.
[12] [42] In anticipation of the Court's ruling, several states began setting legislation in place to allow for legal sports gambling, contingent on the results of the Supreme Court case. By June 5, 2018, Delaware became the first state other than Nevada to legalize sports gambling in wake of the Court decision. [43]
Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States 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]