Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 3141 - 3160
of 40,644
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2023, 7:57 am
When we asked it to name three noteworthy opinions of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Question #11), it started off strong: It identified (and correctly summarized) her majority opinion in United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 4:54 am
Supreme Court’s opinion in Matal v. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 2:54 am
Cal.) in McDonald v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 11:44 pm
Michetti v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 9:05 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 5:13 pm
Wade, returning abortion laws to state legislatures. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 2:52 pm
That all changed in 1977 when one Phoenix law firm ran an ad in a local newspaper that became the basis for the landmark decision in Bates v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 1:15 pm
But don't take my word for it. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 8:00 am
Proponents of congressional Reconstruction did not simply want parchment barriers that would be ignored in the former slave states or words on paper that would give domestic and foreign audiences the impression that the United States was committed to destroying slavery, the slave power, and the slave system. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 5:59 am
These are the folks who would want to roll back segregation, for whom Loving v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 3:33 am
See King v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 12:59 am
By coincidence, that was the day the United States Department of Justice and eight state AGs filed a second Unite States et al. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 6:42 pm
Brown v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 4:44 pm
Under Sony Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 12:53 pm
” Agency for Health Care Admin. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 8:00 am
One part of my Foreword is an investigation into the role of race in two of the Court’s biggest cases last Term—New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
Article V not only imposes supermajority requirements but imposes them at two levels – Congress and state legislatures (or conventions) – both of which must be satisfied. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 5:00 am
” But the whistleblower’s cert petition argues that Sarbanes-Oxley shifts the burden to the employer to prove a lack of retaliatory intent as an affirmative defense (Murray v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 4:37 am
It brings to mind the comment of Lord Scott in Rusbridger v Attorney-General, a case about the moribund Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848:“[Y]ou do not have to be a very good lawyer to know that to advocate the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a republic by peaceful and constitutional means will lead neither to prosecution nor to conviction. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 3:00 am
Following the principles endorsed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Belton v. [read post]
