Search for: "Sheriff v. Rule et al" Results 1 - 20 of 131
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Louis, Missouri, et al. issued a precedential ruling that will likely pave the way for more employee discrimination claims under Title VII. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 1:41 pm by David Kopel
Babak Sarani, et al., Wounding Patterns Based on Firearm Type in Civilian Public Mass Shootings in the United States, 228 J. [read post]
10 Mar 2024, 7:42 am by Dave Maass
The "Winners" The Not-So-Magic Word Award: Augusta County Sheriff’s Office, Va. [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 9:02 pm by Eugene Volokh
Note that the petition that the panel just granted was filed by the challengers (Missouri et al.), and argues that the panel erred in finding no First Amendment violation by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the State Department's Global Engagement Center. [* * *] In yesterday's decision in Missouri v. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:55 am by David Kopel
Rules from Bruen Further analysis of the material in this Part is in my article Restoring the right to bear arms: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 12:30 pm by John Ross
CMP et al. had no First Amendment right to break the laws they broke. [read post]
17 Oct 2022, 11:35 am by David Kopel
In August, The Trace presented a conspiracy about the amicus briefs filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 6:00 am by Norman L. Eisen
That said, the criminal investigation is at an early stage, facts are still being developed, and it is too soon to conclude that crimes were committed – or to rule that out. [read post]
25 May 2022, 7:38 am by Kaufman Dolowich Voluck
County of Ravalli, et al (21-35542), the Court concluded a plaintiff can still accept a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, even when the defendant has been granted summary judgment. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 5:53 pm by Jeff Welty
There is little section 1983 case law concerning inter-agency intervention, but the Fifth Circuit ruled in Hale v. [read post]