Search for: "Smith v. Alabama"
Results 281 - 300
of 410
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2015, 7:14 am
Alabama (no automatic LWOP for juvenile murderers) applies retroactively. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 1:55 pm
Wayne Smith, 2010 Pa. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:01 pm
Alabama Department of Revenue v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 5:36 am
A few days ago we read Juris v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:03 am
For example, in an Alabama decision, Meeks v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 6:25 am
Alabama and Jackson v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 1:10 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 11:55 am
Tracy v. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 11:30 am
Smith that the free exercise clause generally requires no religious exemptions from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 9:18 am
Smith and Espinoza v. [read post]
4 Jul 2023, 10:27 am
Making race-based jury selection decisions in violation of Batson v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 7:55 am
West Alabama Women’s Center, 18-837, which involves a constitutional challenge to Alabama’s ban on what it terms “dismemberment abortion[s]. [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 2:54 pm
Keith Watkins in U.S. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 9:08 am
United States, 18-5232, Smith v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 7:45 am
The Court may be holding it for Smith v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 6:40 am
The Court may be holding it for Smith v. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm
Florida, 15-6075, and Smith v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 9:35 am
Back in 2001, in the aftermath of the silicone gel breast implant litigation, I participated in a Federal Judicial Center (FJC) television production of “Science in the Courtroom, program 6” (2001). [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 11:21 am
Having spent my time and energy on the first seven cases, I’m going to be fairly summary for the last six; Smith v. [read post]
14 Oct 2021, 11:08 am
Texas, 20-493Issue: Whether the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act provides the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the act’s legislative history and the Supreme Court’s holding in California v. [read post]
