Search for: "Holmes v State" Results 361 - 380 of 1,532
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2019, 3:11 pm by Brett Trout
In invalidating the “disparagement” section of the Lanham Act in Matal v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 8:40 am by Kia Rahnama
The Supreme Court has already directly borrowed this principle in analyzing the scope of congressional contempt power, stating in Anderson v. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
 Popular sovereignty meant, as Holmes argued, that even "tyrannical" laws should be upheld if they represented the wishes of legislative majorities. [read post]
31 May 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
  Apart from his ACA decisions, in his dissent in Obergefell v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 9:27 am by Rebecca Tushnet
“[U]sers can easily create specific searches, including all Sherlock Holmes works posted in 2018 that are exactly 221 words long and Lord of The Rings/Game of Thrones crossovers that don't include either Frodo Baggins or Arya Stark. [read post]
9 May 2019, 2:12 pm by Andrew Hamm
Vitale, “declaring that the state may not compel the recitation of a state-composed prayer in schools” Griffin v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 7:21 am by Andrew Hamm
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously suggested in 1919 in Schenck v. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 7:22 am by Stephen Sachs
Again, nothing in this Article addresses the actual norms of actual legal systems—whether in Blackstone's England, New York State, or the United States as a whole. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 10:16 am by John Jascob
He also subpoenaed two women’s health clinics for medical records, communications among doctors and with third parties, presumably including the United States. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 2:27 pm by scanner1
Holmes DA 18-0548 2019 MT 94N Criminal – Burglary State v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 6:00 am by Sandy Levinson
”  One might compare this, ruefully, with the fact that not only Holder, but also his boss, the former President of the Harvard Law Review and a former member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty, never once offered an interesting observation about the United States Constitution and the vision presumably underlying it nor indicated any deep interest in molding the federal judiciary through judicial appointments. [read post]