Search for: "Young v. Kelley" Results 21 - 40 of 46
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2014, 7:24 pm by Reproductive Rights
Wade: Young Reproductive Rights Activists Are Social Justice Activists, by Kelley Robinson: I have the privilege of leading Planned Parenthood's national youth and campus... [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 5:00 am by K.O. Herston
This recent article by Kelley Holland in USA Today may be of interest to readers of this blog. [read post]
2 Sep 2012, 5:25 am by pete.black@gmail.com (Peter Black)
Generally, it is young people from lower-income communities—often black and Latino—who are under pressure to be informants. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 3:22 am by Russ Bensing
A case of good lawyering was shown by the 8th’s decision a couple of weeks back in State v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 7:00 am by Ed Driscoll
UPDATE: Instapundit reader Drew Kelley recommends the current season of Downton Abbey if they’re looking for a WWI-era setting. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 7:43 am by PRATER, DUNCAN & CRAIG 770-253-7778
Avey, Prichard Hawkins McFarland & Young, San Antonio 9 $208,821,015 Products Liability Evans v. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 11:35 am by Madelaine Lane
The Court denied a motion to recuse Chief Justice Kelley in Grievance Administrator v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 4:54 pm by Madelaine Lane
On January 28, 2009, the Court denied motions field by the Fieger law firm to disqualify Justices Corrigan, Markman, and Young from participating in Pellegrino v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 3:41 am
Young, a particularly dreadful decision, as I noted here.) [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
(IPKat) German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) guidance regarding registrability of 'spa' in relation to beauty care products and spa services (Class 46)   Europe ARMAFOAM: the ECJ rules on linguistic and changes OHIM's rules on conversion: Armacell v OHIM (CATCH US IF YOU CAN !!!) [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 9:18 am
The panel also ruled that an improper motive for a challenge by one attorney out of several in a multi-defendant case can be enough to violate the principle of Batson v. [read post]