The phrase "amendment in the case" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in legal contexts when referring to a modification or change made to a legal document or case.
Example: "The judge approved the amendment in the case to include new evidence that had been discovered."
Alternatives: "modification in the case" or "change in the case".
Mr. Levandowski decided to plead the Fifth Amendment in the case, exercising the right against being compelled to incriminate himself.
But is political discomfort about this choice of trial venues a reason to override the Fifth Amendment, in the case of a targeted American citizen like Awlaki?
However, the U.S. Supreme Court declared this part of the act unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment in the case U.S. v. Morrison (2000), in a 5 to 4 decision.
Levandowski has repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment in the case, citing the potential for criminal action that could lead to self-incrimination.
Brayton of ScienceBlogs pointed out that Beck and his lawyers never replied to Randazza's request for all parties to stipulate to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment in the case.
The Supreme Court struck down a law of this type in New York as a violation of the First Amendment in the case Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board (1991).
Nor is the flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment in this case remedied by the fact that the arresting officers, during the course of their ransacking search, uncovered and seized certain articles which it was unlawful for petitioner to possess.
The deadline for amendments in the case is next week, November 23, which means that if Samsung would like to also target Apple's latest products, it has until then to request to do so.
Laws are made to last for decades, even centuries, with the help of judicial interpretation (in this case, the Supreme Court supported Title II classification) and legislative amendment (in this case, the 1996 Telecommunications Act).
The justices' skepticism about the weight of the First Amendment interests in the case was evident today.
The suit had been dismissed by the Federal District Court, which found no First Amendment issue in the case.
