Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Chief Justice White wrote the majority opinion, writing that the Oklahoma law brings race-based discrimination "into existence since it is based purely on a period of time before the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment and makes that period the controlling and dominant test of the right of suffrage."
A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision. Not all cases have a majority opinion. At times, the justices voting for a majority decision (e.g., to affirm or reverse the lower court 's decision) may have drastically different reasons for their votes, and cannot agree on ...
On February 17, 2019, Halima Tariffa Culley's son was arrested while driving his mother's car. [2] Police charged Culley with possession of marijuana and seized the car. . Culley's mother was unable to recover the vehicle, and the State of Alabama filed a civil asset forfeiture case against the vehicle. 20 months later, Culley won summary judgment under Alabama's innocent-owner d
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny", the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. [1]
In a divided vote, the majority of the judges felt bound by the precedent set in State v. Babst (1922) by the Supreme Court of Ohio, which upheld the "statutory predecessor" of section 3599.09(A). The judge who dissented from the opinion argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening decision in Talley v.
Many legal systems do not provide for a dissenting opinion and provide the decision without any information regarding the discussion between judges or its outcome. A dissent in part is a dissenting opinion which disagrees selectively with one or more parts of the majority holding. In decisions that require holdings with multiple parts due to ...
Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and its definition of "exceeds authorized access" in relation to one intentionally accessing a computer system they have authorization to access.
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".