Search for: "Strong v. State" Results 1981 - 2000 of 16,386
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jun 2022, 9:00 pm by Vikram David Amar
Never mind that ISL proponents haven’t adduced any evidence that anyone at the Founding (forget mid-19th century materials, which have no strong relevance to original public meaning in 1787) understood or discussed state legislative powers concerning federal elections to be plenary and not subject to state constitutions. [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 1:39 pm by Eugene Volokh
But that argument—which was actually made by Justices Goldberg and Douglas (and largely echoed by Justice Black) in New York Times v. [read post]
31 May 2022, 6:33 pm by Ilya Somin
I myself am not entirely convinced that this context is enough to overcome the strong presumption that courts are usually supposed to interpret words in accordance with ordinary meaning. [read post]
31 May 2022, 6:43 am by familoo
That view cannot, so it seems to me, survive the opening words of FPR 27.11, which expressly state that the right granted to journalists is to attend a hearing held in private. [read post]
31 May 2022, 6:06 am by Chile Eboe-Osuji
When German ultra-nationalists were peddling under the Nazi swastika ugly rhetoric similar to what is now making the rounds in the United States as “replacement theory,” Germany’s mainstream society did not take them seriously. [read post]
31 May 2022, 5:35 am by Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle
Another possible reason for not filing suit in California is that California has a strong anti-SLAPP statute. [read post]
30 May 2022, 1:00 am by David Pocklington
The Chancellor stated that only because the font is chipped, it may be removed and destroyed. [read post]
27 May 2022, 6:06 am
Wisconsin is one of the leading states for intoxicated boating and boating accidents. [read post]
25 May 2022, 9:01 pm by Richard Zelichov and Trevor T. Garmey
Securities Litigation, 768 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2014) (violations of Section 303 do not give rise to private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5) with Stratte-McClure v. [read post]