Search for: "State v. Hinkle" Results 1 - 20 of 51
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2018, 2:06 pm by Andrew Hamm
As Hinkle and Nelson explain, the Supreme Court in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 1:26 pm by Ruthann Robson
Professor Ruthann Robson, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law In his 33 page opinion today in Brenner v. [read post]
26 May 2020, 8:07 am by Ruthann Robson
DeSantis by United States District Judge Robert Hinkle results in an detailed permanent injunction outlining how Florida must comply with the... [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 5:24 pm by Ruthann Robson
DeSantis, United States District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida held that the Florida statute requiring payment of fines,... [read post]
25 Mar 2017, 10:45 am by Steven Wildberger
[JURIST] US Federal Judge Robert Hinkle on Thursday ruled [opinion, PDF] that the state of Florida must comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 2:55 pm by Lyle Denniston
  Judge Hinkle struck down all of them. [read post]
The statute contains viewpoint and content-based restrictions to speech which are subject to strict scrutiny as per prior precedent like Reed v. [read post]
9 Oct 2007, 8:25 pm
HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; LORETTA K. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 7:00 am by Daniel Tilley
District Court Judge Robert Hinkle, who issued a preliminary injunction blocking SB 7066 in October, called the state’s record keeping “an administrative nightmare. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 10:02 am by Mark Zamora
District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled the state law violates the patient consent provisions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). [read post]
3 Jan 2015, 3:45 pm by Howard Friedman
Judge Hinkle’s lecture, however, has no force of law, and only invites lawlessness throughout the state. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 1:17 pm by Lyle Denniston
In the wave of court rulings following the Supreme Court’s July 2013 ruling in United States v. [read post]