When.com Web Search

  1. Ad

    related to: united states v dingwall case search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States v. Gagnon - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Gagnon

    United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a criminal defendant's rights under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause were not violated by the in camera discussion between the judge and a juror. A defendant has the right to be present at any stage of the trial where the ...

  3. Eric Dingwall - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Dingwall

    In his book Critics Dilemma (1966), Dingwall supported Hall's criticism of the spiritualist William Crookes and the medium Florence Cook. [29] [30] He investigated the mediumship of Eusapia Palladino and came to the conclusion she was "vital, vulgar, amorous and a cheat." [31] In 1920, Dingwall with V. J. Woolley tested the medium Eva Carrière in

  4. Wisconsin v. Kizer - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Kizer

    Wisconsin v. Kizer is a murder case in which the deceased's alleged sex trafficking of the defendant was raised as an affirmative defense, for the first time in Wisconsin and possibly anywhere in the United States. [1]

  5. List of United States patent law cases - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    This is a list of notable patent law cases in the United States in chronological order. The cases have been decided notably by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) or the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). While the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sits below the Supreme Court ...

  6. United States v. Dinitz - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Dinitz

    United States v. Dinitz , 424 U.S. 600 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the U.S. Const., Amend. V protection against double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial of a defendant, who had previously requested a mistrial.

  7. Lynch v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynch_v._United_States

    Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that people can have property interests in contractual agreements with the United States that are protected by due process.Accordingly, Congress cannot reduce expenditures by repudiating and abrogating the contractual obligations of the United States.

  8. Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimball_Laundry_Co._v...

    Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (1949), affirmed the principle set forth in The West River Bridge Company v. Dix et al. , 47 U.S. 507 (1848); that is, that intangible property rights are condemnable via the eminent domain power, and that just compensation must be given to the owners of such rights.

  9. United States v. Dixon - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Dixon

    United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning double jeopardy. The case overruled Grady v. Corbin (1990) and revived the traditional Blockburger standard. [1] [2] The case held that subsequent convictions for offenses that contained the same elements were violative of the Double ...