Missoulian:
Supreme Court won't review W.Va. strip mine case
Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA
“The EPA may take that step “whenever” the agency determines that disposing dredged or fill material “will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas”
Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA
“The EPA may take that step “whenever” the agency determines that disposing dredged or fill material “will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas”
Missoulian: Justices
reject OK plea to restore death sentence
Trammell v. Dodd
“Defendant Rocky Eugene Dodd was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state court and received two death sentences. The two victims were his next-door neighbors in an apartment complex in Edmond, Oklahoma. They were found in their apartment with their throats cut. The prosecution case was circumstantial; there were no eyewitnesses, no confession, and no fingerprint, blood, or DNA evidence linking Defendant to the killings”
Trammell v. Dodd
“Defendant Rocky Eugene Dodd was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state court and received two death sentences. The two victims were his next-door neighbors in an apartment complex in Edmond, Oklahoma. They were found in their apartment with their throats cut. The prosecution case was circumstantial; there were no eyewitnesses, no confession, and no fingerprint, blood, or DNA evidence linking Defendant to the killings”
Missoulian: Court
rejects appeal in swastika branding case
Hatch v. U.S.
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the district court’s conclusion that 18 U.S.C. 49(a)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the district court’s conclusion that 18 U.S.C. 49(a)(1) is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Missoulian: Supreme
Court declines to hear sex registry case
Jane
Doe V Virginia Department of State Police
“Doe was convicted in 1993 of carnal knowledge of a minor without the use of force in violation of Va. Code section 18.2-63. Under Virginia law, she was required to register on the Virginia Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry, Va. Code section 9.1-902 (formerly Va. Code section 19.2-298.1), but she would have been able, after a period of time, to petition a Virginia circuit court to have her name removed from the registry, Va. Code section 9.1- 910. However, a 2008 amendment reclassified Doe’s crime as a "sexually violent offense," 2008 Va. Acts 877; see Va. Code section 9.1-902(E)(1), and because Virginia law does not provide an avenue for sexually violent offenders to petition for removal from the registry, Doe must now remain on the Registry for life, Va. Code section 9.1-910(A).”
“Doe was convicted in 1993 of carnal knowledge of a minor without the use of force in violation of Va. Code section 18.2-63. Under Virginia law, she was required to register on the Virginia Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry, Va. Code section 9.1-902 (formerly Va. Code section 19.2-298.1), but she would have been able, after a period of time, to petition a Virginia circuit court to have her name removed from the registry, Va. Code section 9.1- 910. However, a 2008 amendment reclassified Doe’s crime as a "sexually violent offense," 2008 Va. Acts 877; see Va. Code section 9.1-902(E)(1), and because Virginia law does not provide an avenue for sexually violent offenders to petition for removal from the registry, Doe must now remain on the Registry for life, Va. Code section 9.1-910(A).”
No comments:
Post a Comment