Search for: "STANFORD v. STATE"
Results 21 - 40
of 2,147
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2024, 3:24 pm
I then spot checked to clean up situations where the “William” v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 9:37 am
Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 4:17 pm
In Kejriwal v. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 5:50 am
After all, as Oona Hathaway, Maggie Mills, and Thomas Poston note in their forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, “Ukraine’s most powerful asset in the war has been its capacity to demonstrate time and again that it is consistently on the right side of the law against an opponent bent on breaking every rule on the books. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 3:37 am
And don’t get me started on the Reasonably Scared Cop Rule of Graham v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 2:04 pm
That is, after all, what the text of the Impeachment Clause actually states. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 5:51 pm
In 1995 the Court identified state interests that might justify the rules. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
The most obvious class of examples, as I discussed on Monday and as I explain at greater length in the article, consists of so-called "percentage" plans by which various states guarantee admission to a state university to students graduating in a specified top percentage of their respective high school classes.For example, in his dissent in Fisher v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm
In short, the court concluded in LePage v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 2:16 pm
For example, in Smith v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 5:50 am
The better answer, we argue here and in a forthcoming article in the Stanford Law Review, is to rely on legitimate, collective countermeasures to continue to freeze Russian central bank assets until Russia meets its obligation to pay reparations. [read post]
SCOTUS Repeated Relisting of a Case on the Meaning of Race Neutrality--and a Plug for my new Article
19 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
Sonja Starr in the Stanford Law Review. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 11:41 pm
” That case, now styled Murthy v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 11:00 pm
, 48 Stanford Law Review 113 (1995-1996). [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm
(Infodocket) ICYMI, Trump v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 6:33 am
Susan V. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 4:48 pm
How do the NetChoice cases relate to Murthy v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
As we read the brief, the Amars have retreated from the central position they put forward in an influential 1995 Stanford Law Review article. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 4:35 pm
Sunstein Administrative Law Scholars Amici Brief: SEC v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 11:40 am
What began as an exploratory brainstorm at the Stanford Generative AI and Law Workshop[7] became active and ongoing solicitations of input from legal and technical experts across a spectrum of industry verticals; and eventually, evolving to a formalized set of guiding principles.[8] The outcomes of the initial report demonstrated that existing responsibilities of legal professionals (e.g. [read post]
