Search for: "Childs v. Mississippi" Results 241 - 260 of 454
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2022, 10:54 am by Sara Savat
Trust in (young) women of color to lead, innovate in post-Roe world In some ways — like income inequality and the cost of child care — the United States is in a worse situation than when Roe v. [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
ColbDuring the Mississippi abortion case argued earlier this term, the attorney defending the prohibition invoked the case of Washington v. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 7:31 pm
Application in Family Law Proceedings: One of the recent cases I encountered with implications under Penal Code section 632 involved a mother, while east of the Mississippi River, who allegedly made a suicidal threat and threat to harm her child while on the telephone with the father who was in California. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
District Judge Keith Starrett of the Southern District of Mississippi sentenced Theddis Marcel Pearson and Telandra Gail Jones to 10 years in prison and ordered them to pay $18 million in restitution. [read post]
4 Jul 2011, 1:10 am by Old Fox
In 1870, the sex ratio west of the Mississippi was 120 to 100, and in California it was 166 to 100. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 4:44 pm by Colin O'Keefe
- LEED AP Chris Cheatham of Crowell Moring on his blog, Green Building Law Update Waiting for Ruling to Ya'll Politics' Motion To Unseal in State Farm v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 12:20 pm by Benjamin Pollard
The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 9:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Clark 13-1352Issue: (1) Whether an individual's obligation to report suspected child abuse makes that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause; and (2) whether a child's out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher's concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:00 am by Bexis
[C]onsidering the slight risk of contact polio, the variability of risks of harm (depending on many personal factors, including cleanliness and frequency and type of contact with a recently-vaccinated child), the introduction of individualized medical judgment, and . . . other policy reasons . . ., we do not accept plaintiffs’ invitation to add new requirements to a manufacturer's duty to warn.Plummer v. [read post]