Search for: "Root v. State" Results 3521 - 3540 of 4,649
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Nov 2021, 6:35 pm
Yet this line of questioning, tangential as it may seem, helped expose the Texas law for what it is: a brazen attempt to circumvent Roe v. [read post]
14 Mar 2021, 9:03 pm by Series of Essays
Miller, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law McGirt v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 6:40 am by Lisa R. Pruitt
The Sacramento Bee reported a few weeks ago that the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors voted to support "the grass-roots (and grass-fed) agriculture revolution," and--in particular--local farmers who are bucking state regulations by selling directly to consumers. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 6:35 pm by llaird
Yet this line of questioning, tangential as it may seem, helped expose the Texas law for what it is: a brazen attempt to circumvent Roe v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:39 am by Guest Blogger
“Necessarily,” the Court held in Washington v. [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 11:25 am by Joseph Fishkin
In parts of the United States, back alley abortions would then have remained common, and lunch counters segregated.But to Republicans today, defeating Bork was the original sin. [read post]
20 Nov 2020, 9:00 am by Léon Dijkman
In each of these chapters, Vanni traces the historical roots of the country's patent law, examines how the current-day law impacts the population's access to healthcare and the involvement of civil society and other non-state actors in the pharmaceutical patent system. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 3:44 pm by Orin Kerr
United States has lots of new directions in it. [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 5:07 am by David Kris
” The foreign government must have adopted “procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of information concerning United States persons subject to the agreement. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 3:45 am by Eric Turkewitz
And that is based on the recent legal battle over New York's 2007 amendments to our attorney ethics rules in Alexander v Cahill. [read post]