Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a Texas statute criminalizing public intoxication did not violate the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".
The purpose of the act was to make the law uniform in various states with respect to controlling the sale and use of narcotic drugs. [4] The Commissioners on Uniform State Laws intended to effectively safeguard and regulate narcotic drugs throughout all of the states. [1] Initially, only nine states adopted the uniform state statute.
A former Modesto doctor pleaded guilty Wednesday to charges of illegally prescribing opioid drugs and other medication. Sawtantra Chopra, 76, was prosecuted in the federal court in Fresno.
An Act to amend the Act entitled "An Act to prohibit the importation and use of opium for other than medicinal purposes," approved February 9, 1909, as amended. Acronyms (colloquial) NDIEA: Nicknames: Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act Amendment: Enacted by: the 67th United States Congress: Effective: May 26, 1922: Citations; Public law: Pub ...
Two Indian chemical companies have been indicted for allegedly importing ingredients for the highly addictive opioid fentanyl into the United States and Mexico, the U.S. Department of Justice said ...
In effect, Texas law allows two people to fight and injure each other.” To a certain point. Infliction of serious bodily injury nullifies the exemption, and no weapons are allowed.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.