Search for: "First Amendment Foundation of Florida v. State" Results 21 - 40 of 412
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2018, 2:22 am by Scott Bomboy
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits government from sponsoring or endorsing religious symbols. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 10:26 am by Eugene Volokh
This Article discusses First Amendment concerns with platform transparency laws generally, and the Texas and Florida laws in particular. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 9:44 am by Felicia Boyd (US)
Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) and, significantly, in the patent context in Florida Prepaid v. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 9:44 am by Felicia Boyd (US)
Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) and, significantly, in the patent context in Florida Prepaid v. [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 7:07 am by David Post
Both cases involve a First Amendment challenge to a state sex offender registry statute. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 3:22 pm by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.
Claimant argued on appeal that Florida Statutes 440.105 and 440.34 violated the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the fundamental right to contract. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 5:35 am by Maxwell Kennerly
In doing so, did the Florida Court’s decision cause a “judicial taking” proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 12:52 pm by Bill Ward
In doing so, did the Florida Court's decision cause a "judicial taking" proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 6:07 am
I’m pleased to report that the First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic filed an amicus brief Friday on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Prof. [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 7:33 am
I also said that according to my understanding of the available causes of action under the fourteenth amendment, candidate Bush could not raise a federal question concerning the Florida state litigation (I didn't explore the possibilities under Article II). [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:06 pm by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
 One of the Legislature’s stated purposes in amending Section 90.702 was “to adopt the standards for expert testimony in the courts of this state as provided in Daubert v. [read post]