Search for: "Steven W Kennedy" Results 41 - 60 of 281
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Nov 2007, 1:26 pm
Dickerson, Vanderbilt University W. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 5:35 am
Holowecki, Justice Kennedy presented some of the facts leading up the case then offered advice to any practitioners or judges who might use this opinion in the future, “[w]hile there may be areas of common definition, employees and their counsel must be careful not to apply rules applicable under one statute to a different statute without careful and critical examination. [read post]
8 Aug 2007, 7:05 am
As such, "[w]hile reviewing courts may presume that a sentence within the advisory Guidelines is reasonable, appellate judges must still always defer to the sentencing judge's individualized sentencing determination. [read post]
26 Mar 2008, 10:43 am
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurrence agreeing with the majority’s bottom line, but saying the consular treaty was self-executing. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 6:44 am by Andrew Koppelman
The following contribution to our same-sex marriage symposium is written by Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 12:44 pm
Justice Stevens says that reliance on the Chakrabarty case is misplaced. [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 11:17 am
The following argument recap is by Steven Wu, an attorney at Akin Gump. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 5:03 am
He currently leads a court that has turned the formerly mild John Paul Stevens into the great dissenter.The Court's decision in Bowles v. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 4:19 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie observes that Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 4:34 am by Edith Roberts
Senate Democrats yesterday opened a new front in their effort to obtain records from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s tenure as staff secretary to President George W. [read post]
16 May 2009, 9:00 pm
[W]e have added an additional burden to the state and federal trial process, taken a step closer to eliminating the peremptory challenge, and diminished the ability of litigants to act on sometimes accurate gender based assumptions about juror attitudes. [read post]