Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A aggravate – Some have argued that this word should not be used in the sense of "to annoy" or "to oppress", but only to mean "to make worse". According to AHDI, the use of "aggravate" as "annoy" occurs in English as far back as the 17th century. In Latin, from which the word was borrowed, both meanings were used. Sixty-eight percent of AHD4's usage panel approves of its use in "It's the ...
It is influenced by traditional Chinese medicine. The other traditional medicine that is also practiced in Vietnam is traditional Chinese medicine (Trung Y), also known as Northern Herbology (Thuốc Bắc). [1] [2] Thuốc Nam is one of two kinds of folk remedies known to villagers, the other being the traditional exercise dưỡng sinh. [3] [4]
The Ohio Courts of Common Pleas are the trial courts of the state court system of Ohio. The courts of common pleas are the trial courts of general jurisdiction in the state. They are the only trial courts created by the Ohio Constitution (in Article IV, Section 1). The duties of the courts are outlined in Article IV, Section 4.
Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a local city ordinance that made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and "annoy" any passersby was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The only official publication of the enactments of the General Assembly is the Laws of Ohio; the Ohio Revised Code is only a reference. [4] A maximum 900 copies of the Laws of Ohio are published and distributed by the Ohio Secretary of State; there are no commercial publications other than a microfiche republication of the printed volumes. [5]
At its foundation, the American O/B controversy derived from the appraisal by analysts of a foreign enemy's ability to field combatants. Its wider effect involved a host of issues: the entire war in Southeast Asia and domestic public opinion, the politics of military intelligence and the utility of combat/support formations, presidential electioneering confronting an intelligence estimate ...
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court.If you would like to participate, you can attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".