Search for: "Fisher v. Major" Results 301 - 320 of 800
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Oct 2015, 3:43 am by Amy Howe
At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Wen Fa looks ahead at Fisher v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 7:00 am by Amy Howe
  To her, the Court’s 2012 decision in Fisher v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 8:03 am by Andrew Grossman and Ilya Shapiro
Abigail Fisher, after all, doesn’t ask the Court to overturn its endorsement, in Grutter v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 6:54 am by Amy Howe
” At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog, Joshua Thompson discusses the amicus brief that PLF filed in Fisher v. [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 8:11 am by John Paul Schnapper-Casteras
  In Fisher I, a seven-to-one majority declined to question the Court’s prior precedents (including its seminal 2003 decision in Grutter v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 8:20 am by Richard Rothstein
The blog is delighted to host an online symposium on Fisher v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 8:36 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Copyright History Shyam Balganesh University of Pennsylvania Law School The Questionable Origins of the Copyright Infringement Analysis  Jerome Frank’s infamous/canonical © infringement test from Arnstein v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:09 pm by Lyle Denniston
 Second, the Court has shown no inclination to overrule outright the most recent ruling allowing the use of race in college admissions — its 2003 decision in Grutter v. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 11:36 pm by INFORRM
* Cripps v Vakras – $450,000 ($100,000 aggravated damages) * Pedavoli v Fairfax Media – $350,000 – hard copy and online * Polias v Ryall – $340,000 (Facebook and gossip) * North Coast Children’s Home Inc v Martin – $250,000 * Tassone v Kirkham – $176,408.81 * Fisher v Channel Seven Sydney – $125,000 (Today Tonight) * Visscher… [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 5:20 pm
For example, you can receive alerts on the highly anticipated affirmative action case Fisher v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 7:06 pm by Cynthia L. Hackerott
The Supreme Court has granted to cert again to determine whether the Fifth Circuit majority correctly followed the High Court’s instructions in reaching its conclusion. [read post]