Search for: "*black v. U.s" Results 1 - 20 of 5,274
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2024, 3:09 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
”In the United Kingdom, for example, Black women are four times more likely to die than white women are. [read post]
29 May 2024, 3:52 pm by Reference Staff
For scholarly publications, Rule 10.7.1(d) adds a descriptive parenthetical note for citing cases where an enslaved person was involved, and provides examples like “Wall v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
Here is how Politico described this terrible inclusion:When U.S. [read post]
21 May 2024, 8:17 am by Phil Dixon
Illegal reentry statute was not enacted with a discriminatory purpose and does not violate Equal Protection U.S. v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:40 am by David Pozen
By contrast, Paul-Emile’s theory might suggest a revisionist reading of Gonzales v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 5:00 am by Josh Blackman
In the wake of the announced boycott against Columbia University, I posed several questions to Judge Matthew Solomson of the U.S. [read post]
17 May 2024, 1:07 pm by John Ross
This week the Tenth Circuit vacates that opinion and requests supplemental briefing on how the Supreme Court's recent decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 1:19 pm by Stewart Baker
Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 652-53 (1989), quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 4:50 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
” In the case law, there is something of a presumption in favor of intervention: “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012 (a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” (Maggi v U.S. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
H/t Michael Banerjee  The U.S. [read post]
10 May 2024, 5:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In Pliva, Inc. v Mensing (564 U.S. 604 [2011]), the Supreme Court found that these plaintiffs’ state-law claims against generic manufacturers were preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause to the extent that state-law failure-to-warn statutes required generic drugs to provide more stringent, safer warning labels. [read post]