Search for: "Brown v. South Carolina, State of" Results 141 - 160 of 301
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jun 2014, 6:47 am by Jim Sedor
South CarolinaSouth Carolina Senate Postpones Vote on Ethics Compromise after House Grudgingly Passes Columbus Republic – Andrew Coffman Smith (Associated Press) | Published: 6/5/2014 The South Carolina General Assembly was on the cusp of passing its first attempt at ethics reform in 20 years when Sen. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 3:42 pm by Alexis Hoag-Fordjour
South Carolina, which held that jurors must receive such information to rebut an inference that the defendant posed a danger in the future. [read post]
19 Nov 2022, 8:02 am by Thomas B. Griffith
Judge Childs’s home state of South Carolina was well-represented in the audience and on the program. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:43 am
Feb. 28, 2014)), Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:49 am by Lawrence Solum
Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, along with its companion cases from South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware. [read post]
25 May 2023, 11:06 am by Lana Ulrich
The Court considered Brown’s case along with similar cases from South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. [read post]
22 May 2012, 10:48 am by Gregory Forman
XVII, § 15 do not require South Carolina to recognize gay marriages from other states or countries. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 11:48 am by Mark Walsh
As I wrote earlier this week, the descendants of plaintiffs in a companion case from South Carolina believe that Brown should be renamed Briggs v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 8:57 am by John Mikhail
Justice Scalia was exactly right about this—and for that matter, so was Chief Justice Marshall, who clarified this very point in his circuit opinion in United States v. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 11:54 am by CJLF Staff
  Kohlhepp is a real estate agent and Brown worked for him. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 4:45 pm by Joy Waltemath
Dismissing the non-Title VII claims, the district court agreed with the magistrate that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act expressly subjected federal agencies to Title VII’s prohibitions and, as held by the Supreme Court in Brown v General Servs Admin, Title VII is “an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 2:06 pm by Bexis
  We already did that in connection with the original decision in Conte v. [read post]