Search results
Results from the Go Local Guru Content Network
VIII, XIV. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution 's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments. The case covered the asset forfeiture of the petitioner's truck after the police found a small quantity of drugs ...
However, the ruling by state Supreme Court Judge R. Bruce Cozzens Jr. in Nassau County quickly recieved cheers from government officials in the counties affected by the payroll tax, including ...
The Indiana Appellate Court was created by the Indiana General Assembly by statute in 1891. It was originally created to be a temporary appellate court to handle overflow cases from the Indiana Supreme Court. The Appellate Court was not intended to be a permanent institution; the original statute specified that it would only exist for six years.
The Indiana Supreme Court, established by Article 7 of the Indiana Constitution, is the highest judicial authority in the state of Indiana. Located in Indianapolis, the Court's chambers are in the north wing of the Indiana Statehouse. In December 1816, the Indiana Supreme Court succeeded the General Court of the Indiana Territory as the state's ...
The tax imposed in 2009 was never passed legally, according to a State Supreme Court judge. Joseph Pinciaro , Patch Staff Posted Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:43 am ET | Updated Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:47 ...
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), is a landmark United States Supreme Court [1] decision in which the Court held that the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that employers provide minimum wage and overtime pay to their employees, to state and local governments. [2]
January 5, 2023. A former employee with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) allegedly filed more than $34,000 in fraudulent unemployment claims for herself and her husband and now faces ...
The Court had recognized these two rights on competency for some time. In Dusky v.United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), and in Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975), the Court established the standard for competency to stand trial—the defendant must have a "rational and factual understanding" of the nature of the proceedings, and must be able to rationally assist his lawyer in defending him.