Search for: "State v. Wisdom" Results 2281 - 2300 of 2,319
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2007, 1:16 am
In criminal law, for example, the authors concentrate on death penalty law, even up through People v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 6:13 am
The Machine is Us/ing Us," created by Michael Wesch, Assistant Professor of Anthropology Kansas State University. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 6:38 pm
v=6gmP4nk0EOE Collaboration. [read post]
19 Feb 2007, 11:33 am
United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) involving the admissibility of illegally obtained wiretap evidence; and his authorship, at age 81, of the Court's opinion in Erie Railroad v. [read post]
10 Feb 2007, 11:12 am by Erin
Both the JCPC and the Supreme Court explicitly state that it is not the place of the court to evaluate the wisdom or morality of discrimination in the law, their only role is to evaluate the constitutionality of the law. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 12:38 pm
The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Company v. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 1:32 pm
Familiar examples, to name just a few, include Justice Harlan's famous dissenting opinion in Plessy v. [read post]
21 Jan 2007, 10:01 pm
Today marks the 34th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. [read post]
21 Jan 2007, 8:34 pm
Opinio Juris had an awesome guest blogger over the last week: Opinio Juris Welcomes State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 3:08 am
Even after we quibble over whether the United States Constitution creates a democracy or republic, most Americans revere the United States as a bastion of democratic hope. [read post]
14 Jan 2007, 11:01 pm
(Full disclosure: I am an investigator for the Colorado State Public Defender.) [read post]
31 Dec 2006, 9:06 pm
., Amber Taylor responds to her heckler by explaining how he also could get into Harvard.David Lat at Above the Law reports on the case of Steinbuch v. [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 2:39 pm
Responding in part to the Supreme Court's contribution to this mess with its ruling in Hill v. [read post]