Search for: "Dukes v. Dukes"
Results 3441 - 3460
of 3,534
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2023, 9:05 pm
See generally Brown Shoe Co. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 7:47 am
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 2:58 pm
The Supreme Court has developed this concept further since Youngstown; the most frequently cited case is Dames & Moore v. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 1:03 pm
The pending Dukes v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 1:07 pm
New on the Short Circuit podcast: Duke Professor Nita Farahany digs into her book The Battle for Your Brain and what can be done about a future where the government can read your mind. [read post]
10 May 2012, 11:58 am
As UA and BA duke it out, Bumble Bee Tuna treads water . . . [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm
One proposal—put forward most forcefully by Duke Law Professor Paul Carrington and the late Cornell Law School Dean Roger Cramton—would fix a Justice’s term at 18 years. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 3:07 am
Toronto : Emond Montgomery Publications, 2010 v, 157 p. ; 28 cm. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 4:45 am
Father Frederick Duke 36. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 9:45 am
As Judge Kozinski has elsewhere pointed out, Mike Nifong, the Duke-rape-hoax prosecutor, may lead the prosecutorial pack in that category, although he was probably outdone the D.A. who put Michael Morton in jail for 25 years by hiding a mountain of Brady material. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 8:32 pm
Here's a good passage written by Justice O'Connor that ties federalism to the protection of freedom (from Gregory v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 10:00 am
Last year, Judge William H. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 12:02 pm
Q: Garcia v. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 7:28 am
By Mark S. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 7:55 am
An issue that came up during a terrific panel that I participated in last Thursday—organized by the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project—was whether age-verification laws for social-media use infringed on a First Amendment right of either adults or minors to receive speech anonymously. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 10:28 am
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 2:37 am
Moreover, there appears to be no need for the defendant to prove, as the Supreme Court had required in Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 53, that the comment explicitly or implicitly indicates, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based. [read post]
23 Dec 2006, 10:50 am
ESTAuburn Tigers (10) v. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
” (This latter point becomes the focus of my later essay on A Mantra in Search of Meaning, also published as part of a symposium, this one at the University of North Carolina Law School celebrating the 40th anniversary of Baker v. [read post]
16 Apr 2011, 4:56 pm
., v. [read post]
