Search for: "HILL v. STATE"
Results 2261 - 2280
of 5,319
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2017, 9:05 pm
Bouaphakeo (and more); Steven Calabresi on originalism and liberty; Steven Eagle on wetlands law; Harvey Silverglate and Emma Quinn-Judge on McDonnell and honest-services-fraud prosecutions of state and local officials; and Glenn Reynolds looking ahead to this (2016-17) term; Federal agency can’t unilaterally rewrite unambiguous statutory provision [Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison on Cato certiorari amicus in FLSA tip-pooling case of National Restaurant Association v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 11:59 am
Torrey Hills Community Coalition v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
State, 686 S.E.2d 483, 485-86 (Ga. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 9:13 am
City of San Diego v. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm
Ever since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 8:16 am
Yesterday, I paid a visit to the Supreme Court to sit in on oral argument for City of Ontario v. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 8:00 am
Doe v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 9:16 am
The case is question is a Northern District of Georgia case, Hill v. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 2:55 pm
Case Name: Eaton v. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 12:30 pm
— United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2022, 7:06 am
Indeed, no amendment that has cleared Article V’s two high bars has ever been excluded from the Constitution — until now. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 11:58 am
Lake v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 5:05 am
In StarNet Insurance Co. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 12:08 pm
Common Cause and Lamone v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:49 am
Justice Clark read his opinion for the Court in United States v. [read post]
5 Aug 2012, 10:41 pm
White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. [read post]
5 Aug 2012, 10:41 pm
White Stallion Energy Center, LLC v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 12:00 am
Bus. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
Nearly a decade later, in Hill v Church of Scientology, the Court clarified that this residual relevance obliges courts to engage in principled balancing, weighing Charter values against “the principles which underlie the common law,” and using those values as “guidelines for any modification to the common law which the court feels is necessary” (Hill, para 97). [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 8:00 am
See Brown v. [read post]
