Search for: "I.S. V. STATE"
Results 321 - 340
of 17,505
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2024, 2:15 pm
There are three categories of reverse stings: those conducted to combat street-level prostitution, those conducted online (i.e., web-based) to combat prostitution facilitated by online platforms, and those that target brothel-based prostitution. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 12:49 pm
In Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 10:46 am
Article IV contains the basic security guarantee that provided a primary inducement for the states to join in a constitutional union with strong national powers – the guarantee of mutual defense against both “invasion” from without, and upon special request, against “domestic violence,” i.e., insurrection or violent civil disturbances, from within. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 8:41 am
Delia Guerrero et al. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 8:09 am
Akhil Reed Amar (Yale) and Vikram David Amar (Illinois) in Trump v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 8:04 am
” Cavitt v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 6:33 am
Susan V. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 8:49 pm
Trump v. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 4:48 pm
How do the NetChoice cases relate to Murthy v. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 3:21 pm
See Bridges v. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 8:10 am
It is established case law that Boards of Appeal are not obliged to explicitly state the reasons underlying a decision until they issue the final decision in writing. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 6:26 am
A week from Thursday, on February 8, the Supreme Court will hear argument in No. 23-179, Trump v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 4:31 am
Wallace v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 11:42 am
The most famous example of this blatant abuse came to a head in Castellanos v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 10:36 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 9:01 am
This would seem to be especially so in a case like the present one in light of the gap between “plausibility” and the particularly high standard that the Court has ruled applies before it will make a finding that a State is responsible for genocide – i.e., that for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of the existence of genocidal intent, it must be “the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 8:45 am
Diedrich v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 9:36 am
Ark. 2019) (stating that “[t]he fact that the [confidentiality] Agreement does not state a time limitation, but instead applies forever, further supports a finding that it is unenforceable”); Howard Schultz & Assocs. v. [read post]
