Search for: "v. Atkins" Results 301 - 320 of 899
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 May 2014, 7:46 am
 Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy, joined by the Court’s four liberal justices, held that Florida’s law unconstitutionally limits the ability of capital defendants to demonstrate that they are mentally impaired under Atkins v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 7:22 pm by cdw
Winston’s Atkins claim. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 6:11 pm by Lawrence Solum
Florida and its reasoning in a significant but not yet sufficiently appreciated 2007 decision in Panetti v. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
” This provision was to be interpreted in the light of the common law background, which the Supreme Court summarised as follows [6-7]: “[A] working definition of what makes a statement defamatory, derived from the speech of Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, 1240, is that “the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 9:53 am by John Elwood
Florida, 12-10882, concerning the Sunshine State’s ability to define what constitutes mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]
15 Jun 2018, 6:12 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Tags: Executive Compensation, Long-Term value, Repurchases, SEC, Securities regulation, Shareholder value, Taxation Marking to Market Versus Taking to Market Posted by Guillaume Plantin (Sciences Po) and Jean Tirole (University of Toulouse & IAST) , on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Tags: Accounting, Agency costs, Contracts, Fair values, Information… [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 4:28 am by Amy Howe
  Other coverage comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, while in his column for The Atlantic Andrew Cohen argues that, “[i]f the Supreme Court meant what it said in Atkins [v. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 5:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Cain 13-1433Issue: (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner’s claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]