This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Share The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea to reinstate an Ohio mans conviction for attempted murder. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the courts announcement that it would not intervene in the case, in an eight-page opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Thomas was sharply critical of the Cincinnati-based U.S.
“Ohioans who worked from home during COVID not eligible for tax refund, courtrules; The Ohio Supreme Courtdecision means cities avoided millions in refunds”: Jessie Balmert of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.
Sixth Circuit reinstates Ohio State University’s Lanham Act and state law right-of-publicity claims against Redbubble : You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.
A constitutional ruling by an Alabama judicial body has the rest of the country wondering about its potentially widespread implications. We’re not talking about the Alabama Supreme Courtruling that embryos created through IVF are children , but another recent decision. Sound familiar? One such case in the U.S.
Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”.
Tracy Harpster, a deputy police chief from suburban Dayton, Ohio, was hunting for praise. Then 43, he had spent most of his career with the Moraine, Ohio, police department. In one case, Harpster listened to an Ohio mother’s desperate call for help and then wrote back, simply, “Call me. Harpster was rapt.
They contended that it would seem to follow from Apprendi that a jury must find any facts necessary to support a (nonzero) restitution order, and they suggested that the court should take up a lower courtruling to the contrary. Judicial factfinding for restitution Under Apprendi v. Relisted after the Jan. 10 conference.)
On Wednesday, the justices will hear oral arguments on whether a federal appeals court improperly required her to meet a more stringent standard for her case to go forward than if she had been a member of a minority group for example, if she had been a lesbian. In 2014, she was appointed as a program administrator.
Share In a short procedural order, the Supreme Court on Monday morning threw out a lower-courtruling allowing a state court clerk to be sued for telling a pregnant teenager that her parents must be notified of their child’s desire to seek an abortion without their consent.
Missouri Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, which blocks former President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan from taking effect. The plaintiffs in the case are the states of Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.
Ohio , where the Supreme Court stressed that even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. These civil lawsuits actually raise claims like the infliction of emotional distress that were directly and unequivocally rejected by the Supreme Court. Trump’s Jan.
This week, we highlight a number of those petitions the justices are set to consider, seeking review of lower courtdecisions on student-loan forgiveness, the constitutionality of federal agencies, and more. An association of private, for-profit colleges in Texas went to federal court to challenge that regulation.
While I am a critic of Trump’s speech and actions on that day, I still believe that the the court is completely wrong on the First Amendment. We need to put this insidious legal theory to rest with the finality and clarity of a Supreme Courtdecision. In Brandenburg v. I hope that she does. Griswald
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content