Search for: "Roper v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 423
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2009, 10:16 pm
Finally, the chapter suggests ways to use international human rights to advocate for children in the United States. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 12:04 pm
 Here are excerpts from the piece: Here is an example of a rule, established by the Supreme Court in Roper v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 8:57 am by Steve Hall
  An extended excerpt:The law is made up of rules and standards.Here is an example of a rule, established by the Supreme Court in Roper v. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 10:13 am by Steve Hall
As noted in the preceding post, Justice Kennedy was the author of Roper v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 1:15 pm by Steve Hall
  They are the co-authors of Rethinking Juvenile Justice.Those who hope the court will ban this sort of sentencing point to the 2005 decision in Roper v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 9:03 am
And: “The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on behalf of the 5-4 majority in Roper v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 1:20 pm
" The two current cases are the predictable result of the 2005 decision Roper v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 1:07 pm
And: Four years ago, the Supreme Court faced a similar situation in Roper v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 7:24 pm
Both lawyers relied heavily on the analysis in the Supreme Court's 2005 Roper v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 9:14 am
The Chief Justice, noting that the Court in the Roper v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 8:25 am
The Roper decision took scores of juveniles off death row. [read post]
7 Nov 2009, 11:51 pm
If you're a believer in precedent, you look at what the Court said in 2005, in Roper v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 5:40 pm
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Roper v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 7:10 am
In light of the five-year anniversary of the Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 1:45 pm
Sullivan and Graham present an opportunity for the Court to affirm the reasoning put forth in Roper v. [read post]