Search for: "People v Butts"
Results 221 - 240
of 363
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2014, 4:00 am
While Canadian judges, like their Commonwealth siblings, are unwilling to adopt a New York Times v. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 3:43 am
The decision from two weeks ago—a Friday—in LaBarre v. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 5:01 am
Here's Derouen v. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 12:33 pm
Stop and Frisk in Texas: Terry v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
"Avatar" (7) "Beavis and Butt-Head" (3) "Brave New World" (8) "Coffee and Cigarettes" (7) "Dobie Gillis" (10) "Dr. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 11:43 am
Which is, of course, nonsense.When the Supreme Court decided Brown v. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 4:21 pm
I look it at it before I sentence people. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 4:44 am
People v. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 9:03 am
” Some said this was an affront to Jewish people, an attempt to mock them. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 1:03 pm
Almost zero Cherokee was enough to get your butt marched west. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 11:45 am
What sentence is appropriate for the following crime:Defendant holds down a nine-year old boy on a dining room table and then tells another boy to (1) stick his hand in a bag and then stick his hand in the nine-year old's butt, (2) put a Star Wars light saber with a broken tip in the nine-year old's butt, and (3) rub his penis on the nine-year old's butt, and in response to each of these requests/orders, the other young boy did so because he was afraid of… [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 6:44 am
Hatfill v. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 8:25 am
By David RangavizState v. [read post]
1 Dec 2012, 4:26 am
At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr discusses a good ruling out of the 9th Circuit in United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 3:54 pm
However, in the case of Batson v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 1:14 pm
Under the Ginsberg v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 2:49 pm
" Hatfill v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 5:12 am
He thus decided that it would simply be too damaging to the Court's credibility if there were a straight Republican/Democratic split on the Court, when confronted with the most politically salient case since Bush v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 6:50 am
This doctrine holds,in the broadest outline, that English (like U.S.) courts 'will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory' (Underhill v Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897)) or 'will not adjudicate upon the transactions of foreign sovereign states' (Buttes Gas Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) [1982] AC 888, 931G). [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 5:01 am
See, e.g, United States v. [read post]
