Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the sreepadam lands enfranchisement act 1969 Court: uk supreme court Page 4 of about 32 results (0.152 seconds)

Jun 25 2013 (FN)

Shelby County Vs. Holder

Court : US Supreme Court

Shelby County v. Holder NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 1296.Argued February 27, 2013Decided June 25, 2013 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301. Section 2 of the Act, which bans any standard, practice, or proce...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1992 (FN)

United States Vs. Dixon

Court : US Supreme Court

United States v. Dixon - 509 U.S. 688 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. DIXON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No.91-1231. Argued December 2, 1992-Decided June 28,1993 Based on respondent Dixon's arrest and indictment for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, he was convicted of criminal contempt for violating a condition of his release on an unrelated offense forbidding him to commit "any criminal offense." The trial court later dismissed the cocaine indictment on double jeopardy grounds. Conversely, the trial court in respondent Foster's case ruled that double jeopardy did not require dismissal of a five-count indictment charging him with simple assault (Count I), threatening to injure another on three occasions (Counts II-IV), and assault with intent to kill (Count V), even though the events underlying the charges had previously prompted his trial for criminal contempt for violating a civil protection order (CPO) re...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //