Search for: "People v. Eugene" Results 3081 - 3100 of 3,307
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2010, 8:48 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) Friday, the Michigan Supreme Court handed down an interesting case — People v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 7:53 am by Jeff Gamso
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.I'm back to the Second Amendment because of this comment, because I find my own views on the Second Amendment so at odds with how I see the world, and because, frankly, I haven't figured out just what I want to say about Judge Bolton's order in United States v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 4:37 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) A commenter discussing the gun show case writes, among other things, So, along with Chicago and DC trying to keep poor people from exercising their “fundamental right” by pricing permits/licenses/training/registration out of their reach, now California is trying to reduce the Second Amendment to a “want” instead of a “RIGHT”. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:47 pm by Eugene Volokh
But Dubov simply said that: [T]he Court [in D.C. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 6:42 am by Erin Miller
” At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh announces that he has filed an amicus brief with other law professors in support of the respondents in Snyder v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 9:29 am by Eugene Volokh
Neither do people who aren’t residents of the jurisdiction. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 4:16 pm
The Frye general acceptance test, however, continues to be the standard for determining reliability and admissibility of expert testimony in New York (see People v. [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 2:16 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) After McDonald, and the newly enacted Chicago handgun ordinance, people are again turning to whether and when gun license fees are unconstitutional. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 9:26 am by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) In the free speech / dogfighting video case, United States v. [read post]