Search for: "DAVIS v. CALIFORNIA"
Results 341 - 360
of 1,764
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2020, 10:41 am
The Supreme Court summarily reversed in Davis v. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 9:05 pm
In Loomis v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 6:22 am
(relisted after the February 21, February 28 and March 6 conferences) Davis v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 5:05 am
What this meant is that colleges didn’t subject themselves to liability to the accuser by imposing a lesser remedy than expulsion, and that the circuit was emphasizing a return to the criteria stated by the Supreme Court in Davis v. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm
United States and Printz v. [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm
Although the Second Circuit may have gotten to the right legal result (given the constraints under which lower courts operate), there is one aspect of its reasoning that I believe reflects a common and dangerous misunderstanding (an overreading, actually) of the highly contested Obamacare ruling, National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 6:55 am
Davis v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 8:31 am
In Davis v. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 9:01 pm
United States and Free Enterprise Fund v. [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 6:53 am
State Bar of California should be overruled and “integrated bar” arrangements like Wisconsin’s invalidated under the First Amendment. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 9:01 pm
James School v. [read post]
2 Jan 2020, 9:01 pm
This might explain some of what the Supreme Court said and did in the 1993 decision in Nixon v. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 7:55 am
” This overbroad formulation is a far cry from the definition set forth by the Supreme Court in Davis v. [read post]
26 Dec 2019, 12:37 pm
And a massive investment of resources that results in (1) two lengthy opinions by the California Supreme Court (in 2005 and 2006); (2) a 146-page opinion by the Central District on habeas, and (3) a 318-page opinion by the Southern District on habeas (in 2013).And now, in 2019, another lengthy opinion. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 2:50 am
In the High Court, Sir Robert Nelson concluded that the claim for California surrogacy expenses had to fail because he was bound by Briody v St Helens and Knowsley Area Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1010, [2002] QB 856 on this issue. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 9:01 pm
Sanders and Reynolds v. [read post]
8 Dec 2019, 3:00 pm
Rehnquist participated in each argument, including Davis v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 6:00 am
Described by his classmates as “crazy smart,” Holmes graduated from high school in 2006 and enrolled in the University of California, Riverside as a scholarship student that fall. [read post]
1 Dec 2019, 9:01 pm
In Gill v. [read post]
1 Dec 2019, 6:30 am
Williams (University of Auckland); Rachel Jean Baptiste (University of California, Davis). [read post]
