Search for: "STATE v KENNEDY"
Results 3341 - 3360
of 7,329
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Nov 2008, 8:30 am
So what can possibly be at issue in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:57 am
Kennedy v The Charity Commission, heard 29 – 31 October 2013. [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 10:20 pm
And one month later, a cert petition was filed in United States v. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 8:36 am
Kennedy. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 5:05 pm
Kennedy and State Farm, (C.P. [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:40 am
Last week’s decision in Town of Greece v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 3:13 pm
But we have at least three (if not five, if we count Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy) justices who would allow state funds to support explicitly religious activity if awarded on the basis of religion-neutral criteria. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 4:08 am
In Tuesday’s argument in Heffernan v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 8:39 am
The case is Nevada Commission on Ethics v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 3:00 am
This effectively reverses State v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 11:19 am
First, Strickland v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 9:25 am
In ONEOK v. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 6:48 am
In Kennedy v. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 12:31 pm
Justice Kennedy’s vote with the four liberals has been key in this recent development of the law, and two cases on the upcoming Court docket, McCrory v. [read post]
11 Jul 2021, 6:30 am
Seila Law LLC v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 8:26 am
The eagerly awaited oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:30 am
At Concurring Opinions, Dave Hoffman discusses a recently filed complaint which tests the intentional tort exception to the requirement that a defendant purposefully avail himself of a state’s laws for that state to exercise personal jurisdiction – an exception that Justice Kennedy specifically mentioned in his opinion last Term in McIntyre v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 11:55 am
In Vartelas v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 2:15 pm
If anything, Justice Kennedy’s first query of the day proved the point, when he encouraged Urbanski to turn to the second question presented (which the Justices had added) on whether, on the merits, the Ninth Circuit’s de novo analysis of the harmlessness of the state trial court’s error had misapplied the Supreme Court’s standard for prejudice under Brecht v. [read post]
