Search for: "People v. Wear" Results 2161 - 2180 of 2,639
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2017, 4:33 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Washington Examiner, Ryan Lovelace reports that the “right-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation is asking the Supreme Court to review a Minnesota law that prevents people from wearing shirts, hats and other clothing that makes political statements at polling places, a law the group says violates the First Amendment. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 3:35 am by Russ Bensing
”  Nonetheless, just last year a bitterly divided Court, in a 5-4 vote in  Connick v. [read post]
3 Sep 2023, 12:23 am by Frank Cranmer
Douglas Strang, Scottish Legal News: Higgs v Farmor’s School and others. [read post]
20 May 2022, 5:27 am by David Pocklington
A total of 28 people received between two and five referrals…”. [read post]
24 May 2011, 4:59 am by Dianne Saxe
[xi] However, 400 people signed a petition against the initiative. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 2:33 pm by GSU Law Student
Quarter, a tribute that should encourage more people to recognize Pauli Murray’s name [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
The prospect of such instruction reminds me of a memo I recall reading from another law school in which one faculty member explained her allergy to perfumes and directed colleagues to refrain from wearing perfume or cologne at work. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 12:09 pm by Lowell Brown
YouTube is available on over 350 million mobile devices, and each week 100 million people engage in some form of social action on the video-sharing site, such as comments, shares, or “likes. [read post]
16 Dec 2006, 2:06 pm
  But my curmudgeonly fears were laid to rest earlier this week when the Supreme Court decided Carey v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 1:00 pm by Guest Author Gary Arlen
  “When violence breaks out at what was a peaceful protest, the people involved may or may not be the same ones. [read post]
24 May 2007, 7:46 am
On June 12, 2006, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Hill v. [read post]