Search for: "Washington v. Roberts" Results 3321 - 3340 of 4,696
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2011, 6:21 am by Conor McEvily
” Mark Kende at PrawfsBlawg addresses Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 6:23 am by Joshua Matz
”  Finally, Robert Barnes of the Washington Post notes “unmistakable comparisons to the court’s action on the Social Security Act of 1935” (which the Court upheld in a pair of cases in 1937). [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 5:00 am by Matt Osenga
  Taranto is a partner at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Farr & Taranto. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 6:26 am by Kiran Bhat
” The Associated Press, Adam Liptak of the New York Times, Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle, Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, Ben Goad of the Riverside Press-Enterprise, Bill Mears of CNN, and Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers also have coverage. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 3:58 pm by nflatow
Roberts expressed concern about secret warrantless GPS tracking by police during oral argument in U.S. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 2:07 pm by admin
Today the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of United States v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 11:12 am by Lyle Denniston
The argument in the much-anticipated case of U.S. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 12:21 pm by Lyle Denniston
On the surface, all that might seem to be at stake in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 6:43 am by Marissa Miller
Robert Barnes at the Washington Post reports on retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s recent activities in retirement, describing the Court’s first female justice as “breaking ground again and creating her own template for life after the court. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 6:06 am by Amanda Frost
  The question for the Court in M.B.Z. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 9:21 pm by Lyle Denniston
  One of those three was a man named Robert Trackling. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 7:12 am by Marissa Miller
New Hampshire, the Washington Post‘s Robert Barnes reports that the Court “seemed reluctant . . . to create additional constitutional barriers” to the admission of eyewitness testimony. [read post]