Search for: "Stevens v. Cox" Results 21 - 40 of 84
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 May 2022, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
The Supreme Court upheld an essentially identical state law in the 1965 case of Cox v. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 8:03 am
Justice John Paul Stevens was in the majority on result only; he expressed different reasons for the outcome. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 5:36 pm by Jared Sulzdorf
– Washington, DC attorney Steven Berk on his blog, The Corporate Observer FTC v. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 4:01 am by Edith Roberts
” Additional coverage comes from Erin Cox for The Washington Post. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
– Brian Cathcart Case Law, Strasbourg: ML and WW v Germany, Article 8 right to be forgotten and the media – Hugh Tomlinson QC and Aidan Wills Case Law: Venables v News Group Papers, Application to Vary Confidentiality Injunction Dismissed, PJS extended – Samuel Rowe Case Law: Lachaux v Independent Print, Supreme Court abolished common law presumption of damage in libel cases – Mathilde Groppo Supreme Court considers social media defamation: context… [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 2:16 pm
Count 1 alleged that Lenard stole property from Steven Mladenovic (`Mladenovic’) valued at $7,500 or more, but less than $150,000. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:44 am by Amy Howe
  First up is Wittman v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 1:19 pm
The closest the Supreme Court has come to answering that question is in pair of decisions from World War I--the so-called "Selective Draft Law Cases" and Cox v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 4:14 am by Edith Roberts
In The Economist, Steven Mazie looks back at the recently concluded Supreme Court term, calling it “a year of comity. [read post]
24 May 2010, 6:37 am by James Bickford
  The unanimous decision in Maqaleh v. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
In today’s column, I criticize its reliance on the views of liberal scholars.In a single paragraph, Justice Alito cites John Hart Ely, Archibald Cox, Laurence Tribe, Mark Tushnet, Philip Bobbitt, and Akhil Amar for the proposition that the reasoning of Roe v. [read post]