What is the DeJonge vs. Oregon case about?
405132
It upheld the right to assembly freely on behalf of the Communist Party.
46702
It is legal in Oregon, and the Supreme Court upheld the law.
245297
The citations come from the case Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, from April 27, 2005.  Molly K. Beutz is a member of counsel for the law firm Faegre & Boston.  In that case, "Plaintiffs, law firm and lawyer, alleged that defendant, alleged contemnor, registered numerous internet domain names that were confusingly similar to the law firms protected mark, appropriated a nickname of the lawyer to create a another confusingly website, and published defamatory statements on the websites; and that he did so in violation of specific court orders and a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order."\n\nThe context is as follows: "Plaintiff John Hinderaker publishes a popular internet blog -- or web log -- entitled 'Power Line,' located at powerlineblog.com, under the pseudonym 'Hindrocket.' Hinderaker Decl. P 5. On September 13, 2004, a statement appeared on the discussion board on pleasedontkillyourbaby.com/Discussion that purported to be by Hinderaker. Exh. 107 to Seventh Beutz Decl. Hinderaker did not create or authorize use of the posting attributed to his name. Hinderaker Decl. P 3."\n\nExh. 107 refers to Exhibit 107, as marked in the case and approved by the court.  "to Seventh Beutz Decl." reverse to the statement made in the seventh declaration of the attorney Beutz made in that exhibit.\n\nReally it's not a very interesting element of the case, but it at least explains what this abbreviated term means.
405345
Well, us folks who live in Eugene and Springfield Oregon think it is here. They are across the river from each other. A couple of times they have even had sister city debates. Some of the environmentalist things Lisa gets into are right out of S/E. The terrain is much like Oregon. Also one of the writers, sorry I can't remember which at the moment, lives in Springfield OR! I have heard them say, if you can believe them, that is a place in the mind.
1092291
Determined by supreme court case.
134974
Your case could be from a State supreme court.
1036882
It states, "No State... shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Over time, courts have created the doctrine of substantive due process, which esentially states that a state deprives a citizen of due process if it violates the first 8 amendments.
291597
Not so brief, but it sums it up I think. =-)\n\nEngel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is relatively non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, with Justices Frankfurter and White unable to vote.\n\nThe case was brought by the parents of students who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs and was supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheists . The prayer in question was:\n\n    Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.\n\nThe plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer (even if students are not required to recite it) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth), which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The governments of twenty-two states1 signed on to an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance of the New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer. The American Ethical Union, the American Jewish Committee, and the Synagogue Council of America each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.\n\nJustice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, pointed out that the prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of its being a prayer. The majority further ruled that prescribing such a religious activity for school children is inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. That is, the program was created by government officials to promote a religious belief and therefore not permissible.\n\nIn response to the defendant's claims that: (a) the prayer does not respect any specific established religion; and (b) the prayer is voluntary, Black's opinion held that neither of these claims frees it from contradicting the Establishment Clause. The opinion held that the fact that it promotes a religion is sufficient to conclude it is in violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. Furthermore, the opinion held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough to not promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it does still promote a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which is also a violation of the Establishment Clause.
870743
The following apply to the United States of America,\nFirst, one must remember that the accused is entitled to his/her day in court and to confront the witnesses against him/her. Confront here means question in court, not go toe to toe.\nSecond, there is a principle known as discovery where the accused's attorney gets to see evidence, including statements made against the accused, in order to be able to mount a defense. Now there's the rub, the attorney might be unethical enough to reveal names of witnesses to the accused prior to trial.\nI would suggest speaking with the prosecuting attorney about your concerns.
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
573184
1.  A.  Traffic courts have limited jurisdiction.\n\n2.  D.  WPA was supposed to help America through the Great Depression.  What actually got America out of the Great Depression was the buildup necessary to fight World War II.\n\n3.  A.  Don't quote me, but I believe it's Oregon.\n\n4.  A, possibly C.  The rights read to someone are actually the Miranda rights, coming from the Miranda vs. Arizona case in 1966 (I'm not sure if that's the case that you're trying to quote in C).  The right to remain silent stems from the Fifth Amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself" (paraphrased).  Marbury alludes back to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1801, where Marbury was a midnight appointment of outgoing president John Adams, who James Madison, the new Secretary of State, refused to grant credentials to.
924642
Not yet. There is a case near San Diego that will be heard by the courts.
465804
To illiminate controversy between the state(s) and federal gov't.
606566
Lawsuits are part of the public record in Oregon. If you go to the county courthouse, there is a public computer terminal. You can do a name search if you know the full name. The clerks  may not be able to help you search, you will have to puzzle it out yourself. However, there is an instruction booklet in front of the terminal. You won't be able to get the full record that way, but if their name pops up with a lot of hits, it ain't too good. \n\nGood luck\nLeigh \nPortland
7634
I heard this was a rumor from his trip to Mexico. Apparently, however, the suit is still in court and is pending a verdict. The real truths will come out on the stand. Link below is to a TheSmokingGun article describing the suit with filed documents.
289692
On the heels of the Rodney King riots. The DA was ordered by the mayor to lose the case.  That is why they had inexperenced lawyers trying the case. OJ Simpson indeed lives a charmed life.
536815
It used to be called "Zealous Advocacy" in the ethical codes.\n\nThe basic idea is that the legal system is adversarial, and that truth is best found when opposing learned individuals vigorously advocate their respective sides of the argument.\n\nThe 6th Amendment also guarantees assistance of counsel, which has been interpreted as effective assistance. Since the prosecutor is likely to be vigorous in seeking conviction (given the nature of the adversarial system), the defense must be equally vigorous.