Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Florida voters will have the final say on a constitutional amendment to guarantee access to abortion after the state's Supreme Court Monday decided to allow the question on the 2024 statewide ballot.
The court issued one sentence as the 11 a.m. deadline for its regular weekly opinion release came and passed: "There are no Florida Supreme Court opinions ready for release today, March 28, 2024."
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with issues involving the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the case establishes a firm line in cases where police conduct search and seizure without a warrant. The court ruled that, while it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their ...
April 2024 — On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court decides to uphold Florida’s 15-week abortion ban, paving the way for the state’s six-week ban to go into effect May 1. The court also rules ...
[11] The Florida Supreme Court further stated that "the broad sweep of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of the summary. Denying this requires a flight from reality", while ruling that there is "no basis for concluding that the proposed amendment is facially invalid under the United States Constitution." [10] [12]
This new sentencing scheme was struck down by the Florida Supreme Court in a ruling 5–2 in October 2016, which held that a death sentence must be issued by a unanimous jury. [28] The United States Supreme Court later left this decision undisturbed. [29] Governor Scott in early 2017 signed a new law requiring a unanimous jury. [30]
Florida law enforcement agencies began refusing to publicly release crime victims' names after voters passed a victims' rights constitutional amendment, but the state Supreme Court ruled on ...
The state appellate court affirmed, [4] but the Supreme Court of Florida reversed, holding that Nollan and Dolan did not apply because (1) Koontz's permit was denied, rather than granted subject to the unconstitutional condition, and (2) the District sought money rather than a conveyance of real property as a condition to issuing the permit. [5]