Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
For use in connection with "matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft", including disclosure "in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers"
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Building 1, the headquarters. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (TxDMV) is a state agency of Texas, headquartered in Austin.The agency handles vehicle registration and titling, authorizes operating authorities of motor carriers, and gives grants to law enforcement agencies to increase public awareness about automobile theft and to reduce automobile theft.
Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.
South Texas Law Review. 47. Pace University School of Law: 685. Levenson, Laurie L. (10 February 2013). "Discovery From the Trenches: The Future of Brady". UCLA Law Review Discovery. 60: 74; Special Litigation Division (January 2012). "Brady v. Maryland Outline" (PDF). The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.
Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence . Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.
In the US, this is primarily a state-level rule with considerable variation in its application. [9] For example, in Arizona, the family purpose doctrine is applied very broadly and holds parents liable even for the negligence of a child driving a motor vehicle in defiance of driving restrictions placed upon him. [10]
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception.