Search for: "State v. Siegel"
Results 181 - 200
of 485
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2021, 6:30 am
By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the Texas law had closed half the abortion clinics in the state. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 2:45 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 8:16 pm
In Snyder v. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 8:16 pm
In Snyder v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 5:35 am
That is the justification often offered for cases like Griswold and Lawrence.Because of two early decisions, the Slaughterhouse Cases and United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 6:19 pm
In City of Ontario v Quon, 130 S. [read post]
20 Jul 2013, 11:55 am
Shelby County v. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
16 May 2023, 3:35 pm
Platkin, no. 22-7474 and Siegel v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:45 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 10:05 am
I am reminded of Mississippi v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 9:13 am
Colorado (2000) 12-1371 — United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 6:11 am
Former State Senator Hiram Monserrate lost his expedited appeal that challenges his expulsion from the Senate after he was convicted on a domestic violence offense.The case is Monserrate v. [read post]
20 Jan 2023, 4:53 am
“The defendant must affirmatively demonstrate the absence of one of the elements of legal malpractice” (EDJ Realty, Inc. v Siegel, 202 AD3d 1059, 1060). [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 11:28 am
Siegel, Cass R. [read post]
8 Sep 2023, 9:30 pm
US has a long history of state lawmakers silencing elected Black officials (Times-Union). [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm
From the New York Times: Reva Siegel (Yale Law School) on the future of legal abortion: "With Justice Anthony M. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 7:50 am
Among its many other virtues, the opinions in Obergefell v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:30 pm
She will speak about Dobbs v. [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 5:17 am
TarrowWhen, on June 24th, the Supreme Court effectively liquidated Roe v Wade, scholars of social movements and abortion rights shook their heads – but not in disbelief. [read post]
