Search for: "Day v. Texas" Results 2081 - 2100 of 7,691
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2019, 3:31 pm by Melanie Fontes
He dissented when the Court struck down a Texas restriction on abortion providers in Hellerstedt. [read post]
8 May 2015, 8:15 am by Don Cruse
STATE OF TEXAS, No. 14-0226 Disposed on orders list of May 8, 2015 CITY OF DALLAS v. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 9:58 am by Ernest E. Badway
  This case is of particular interest to securities litigators because it is one of several cases since the landmark Supreme Court case of United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2010, 6:20 am by Gritsforbreakfast
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals blog identifies two examples of this phenomenon from published opinions released in March:PD-0307-09, Ronald Lee Wilson v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
In that world, we are perpetually ignorant about what the next day will bring, but always alert to calculations of our political interests and preferences. [read post]
6 May 2008, 5:06 pm
The last person executed before the de facto moratorium began was Michael Richard, executed by Texas on the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to consider the Baze case. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 6:43 am by Don Cruse
Last week, it granted rehearing in Mabon Limited v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 8:44 am by Joel R. Brandes
After spending ten days in Texas, the Mother and N.M.D. arrived in Michigan on August 29 or 30, 2017 and stayed in a home owned by the Mother’s sister and brother-in-law. [read post]
24 May 2019, 3:59 am by Lyle Denniston
Federal and state judges these days are finding a new assignment: reading up on what the Supreme Court once called “the infamous history of bills of attainder. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 3:30 am by David Oscar Markus
  Here's a good summary of the biggest cases, which address abortion and guns, from Vox:For four decades, anti-abortion activists have dreamed of the day when the Supreme Court would overrule Roe v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 4:24 pm
The Act provided that a class action could not be maintained unless the purported violation was either (1) an act or practice declared to be deceptive or unconscionable by a rule adopted by the Attorney General before the consumer transaction on which the action was based or (2) an act or practice determined by an Ohio state court to violate the Act and committed after the decision had been made public.The purchaser could not pursue a claim under the Ohio Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act… [read post]