Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. [1]
The reasonable expectation of privacy has been extended to include the totality of a person's movements captured by tracking their cellphone. [24] Generally, a person loses the expectation of privacy when they disclose information to a third party, [25] including circumstances involving telecommunications. [26]
The funeral home was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group involved in multiple transgender rights cases. They filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to hear the case. [5]
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to canvass signatures for a petition against United ...
In 1874, the U.S. government created the United States Reports, and retroactively numbered older privately-published case reports as part of the new series. As a result, cases appearing in volumes 1–90 of U.S. Reports have dual citation forms; one for the volume number of U.S. Reports, and one for the volume number of the reports named for the relevant reporter of decisions (these are called ...
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case involving freedom of the press publishing public information. [1] The Court held that both a Georgia statute prohibiting the release of a rape victim's name and its common-law privacy action counterpart were unconstitutional. The case was argued on ...
After ruling against White Castle in a biometric case that potentially could have cost the company $17 billion, the Illinois Supreme Court hinted that the General Assembly may want to clarify the law.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling invalidating the ordinance and held: (a) The ordinance by discriminating among movies solely on the basis of content has the effect of deterring drive-in theaters from showing movies containing any nudity, however innocent or even educational, and such censorship of the content of otherwise protected speech cannot be justified on the basis of the limited ...