Search for: "J. (I) Espinoza"
Results 1 - 20
of 38
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2024, 3:00 am
“I see this as an example of people using DIBELS for unvalidated purposes, but in the grand scheme, it’s not one of the worst ‘off’ uses I have seen. [read post]
13 Apr 2024, 6:57 pm
Tia misses you very much, your kids and I miss you too,” said Aden Garcia. [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 7:20 am
Fuerst & Robert J. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 10:52 am
Barilla, Elanie J. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 10:01 am
Argument [I.] [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 9:55 am
” Espinoza v. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
Espinoza v. [read post]
31 Jul 2022, 6:30 am
In Espinoza v. [read post]
2 Jul 2022, 10:10 pm
And she has a see-I-told-you-so moment: As Justice Breyer explains, this status-use distinction readily distinguishes this case from Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 11:30 am
" Heller (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting); see also Espinoza v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 1:56 pm
For example, my amicus brief in Espinoza v. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 7:44 pm
” Garen J. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 6:57 am
Garnett is the Paul J. [read post]
25 Jul 2020, 12:21 am
The first category include relatively straightforward Free Exercise Clause cases; for example, Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 2:32 pm
And in Espinoza, he walked back Footnote Three of Trinity Lutheran. [read post]
[Josh Blackman] The Roberts Court Slowly Inters Justice Kennedy's Ephemeral "Jurisprudence of Doubt"
30 Jun 2020, 4:01 pm
See Trinity Lutheran, (GORSUCH, J., joined by THOMAS, J., concurring in part). [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 10:55 am
Ante, at 3 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 7:51 am
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined except as to Parts III–C and IV–F, and in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 2:33 pm
— Donald J. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 3:58 am
” In an op-ed for The Washington Post (subscription required), Steven Mazie worries that “[i]f the tenor of the oral argument [in Espinoza v. [read post]
