Search for: "White v. State"
Results 3061 - 3080
of 11,994
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2009, 7:50 am
Cuomo v. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 4:04 am
White. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 3:34 am
Carpenter v. [read post]
8 May 2021, 2:55 pm
United States, about reductions of prison sentences for certain crack cocaine offenses. [read post]
1 May 2023, 7:47 am
In the latest loss in United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 7:25 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 5:43 am
"Graham v. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 2:03 pm
Official White House Photo by Pete SouzaUnderstanding Olmstead requires a basic understanding of the Medicaid waiver system. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 1:16 pm
Appealed from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 8:02 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 8:45 pm
Taney stated that under the Constitution persons of African descent, including free persons of color, have no rights the white man need respect, concluded that Congress had to permit slavery in all federal territories, and his opinion played a large role in precipitating the bloodiest war in U.S. history. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 11:19 am
95 N.Y.2d 368 740 N.E.2d 1075 718 N.Y.S.2d 1 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent-Appellant, v. [read post]
30 Mar 2025, 9:01 pm
About two weeks ago, the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by a 10-5 vote, declined to exercise en banc review of an important 2024 voting-rights case, Republican National Committee v. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 2:32 pm
In Rehaif v. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 2:43 am
Marshall’s most famous decision — Marbury v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 4:46 am
(David Bernstein) Last week, Eugene blogged about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Fair Housing Council v. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 7:00 am
” Reading briefs in Seila Law v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 1:29 am
SEC v. [read post]
4 May 2012, 10:47 am
Note also that the Court’s fractured decision in United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 2:27 pm
This requirement is consistent with the limitation imposed upon state-taxpayer standing in federal courts in Doremus v. [read post]