Search for: "State v. Siegel" Results 261 - 280 of 490
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Feb 2018, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Siegel persuasively argues that, ironically, “claims and compromises forged in social movement conflict over the right to bear arms in the decades after Brown v. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 8:00 am by Guest Blogger
Article V, because it requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, is, as Sandy Levinson has put it, functionally dead. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 4:21 am
Siegel, Yale Law SchoolKenji Yoshino, Yale Law SchoolAngela P. [read post]
8 Aug 2009, 8:48 pm
  Scholars such as Reva Siegel have vehemently objected to these constructions of pregnant women as creatures who do not know their own minds and hearts, stating instead that the vast majority of women are responsible reproductive decision makers, and that recognizing decision making autonomy is a core element of honoring women's dignity. [read post]
14 Jun 2024, 11:31 am by Ronald Mann
” The issue in Office of the United States Trustee v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 10:45 am by Neil Siegel
The Fifth Circuit’s recent abortion decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 4:02 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Those causes of action were duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action because they arose from the same operative facts and did not seek distinct and different damages (see Thompsen v Baier, 84 AD3d 1062, 1064; Symbol Tech., Inc. v Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 69 AD3d 191, 199; Maiolini v McAdams & Fallon, P.C., 61 AD3d 644, 645; Gelfand v Oliver, 29 AD3d 736; Shivers v Siegel, 11 AD3d 447). [read post]
20 Apr 2022, 6:51 am by Ronald Mann
To compare – the justices spent 76 minutes hearing argument in the 11 o’clock case on the preceding day, Siegel v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Siegel, Equality Emerges As a Ground for Abortion Rights, (December 31, 2022).June Carbone & Naomi R. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 8:56 am
” *John Nieman suggests that the Court’s single-sentence denial of the states’ petitions may be the perfect book-end to its single-sentence denial of the first same-sex marriage claim in 1972: “With forty years of hindsight, the Court’s one-liner saying effectively nothing in Baker v. [read post]