Search for: "Shelby v. U.s.*"
Results 21 - 40
of 68
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2017, 8:59 am
That brings us to our other new relist for the week: Patchak v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 7:59 am
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP 16-833 Issues: (1) Whether a federal court has the authority to reimpose, under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the same “anti-retrogression” preclearance standard invalidated as to Section 5 by Shelby County v. [read post]
21 Apr 2017, 4:59 am
You will recall that a few years back in Shelby County v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 8:45 am
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP 16-833 Issues: (1) Whether a federal court has the authority to reimpose, under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the same “anti-retrogression” preclearance standard invalidated as to Section 5 by Shelby County v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 8:31 am
Order at 2–3, Stansell v. [read post]
12 May 2016, 5:49 pm
Wills v Memphis, 2016 WL 1651878 (WD TN 4/25/2016)Filed under: Current Caselaw, Due Process, Equal Protection [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 10:14 am
The NAACP ties its position specifically to Shelby County v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am
” The challengers are represented by the appellate team who won Shelby County v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 2:42 am
City of Shelby, a case in which the plaintiffs had not specifically invoked 42 U.S.C. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 5:42 am
City of Shelby, 13-1318, a four-time relist, the Court summarily reversed the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of a summary judgment against the petitioners for failure to expressly invoke 42 U.S.C. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 3:35 pm
City of Shelby, No. 13-1318 (U.S. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 10:59 am
City of Shelby, 13-1318, gets its fourth relist. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 1:30 pm
King v. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 1:30 pm
City of Shelby 13-1318Issue: (1) Whether a federal complaint is subject to dismissal when it [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:57 am
City of Shelby, 13-1318, arises from a suit in which two former Shelby, Mississippi police officers claimed that their termination violated their Fourth Amendment rights. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:10 am
Scott v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 6:39 pm
The petition of the day is: Johnson v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am
Khan v. [read post]
