Search for: "Reynolds v. Doe" Results 381 - 400 of 898
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2015, 10:19 am by John Elwood
Though the plan created districts roughly equal in total population, the appellants contend that it nevertheless contains “gross disparities in voters or potential voters,” and thereby runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “one person, one vote” principle under Reynolds v. [read post]
18 May 2015, 10:01 am by Lyle Denniston
Alito announces the opinion in San Francisco v. [read post]
18 May 2015, 3:00 am by Kevin LaCroix
Frank Reynolds’ May 15, 2015 Thomson Reuters article about the ruling can be found here. [read post]
11 May 2015, 6:33 pm
Unlike the prohibition on the possession and use of marijuana upheld in Gonzales v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
” [@ClarkHat on Twitter] “Kern County, a jurisdiction with a long unfortunate history of putting the wrong people in prison” [Radley Balko, Glenn Reynolds/USA Today on People v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 8:03 am
We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 6:06 am
Reynolds, 144 Wash.2d 282, 27 P.3d 200 (Washington Supreme Court 2001) (law enforcement may retrieve and search voluntarily abandoned property without a warrant or probable cause). [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 9:03 pm by Lyle Denniston
 Arguing for the local government and two police officers in San Francisco v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 12:31 pm by INFORRM
 This argument was available because in relation to the tort of malicious falsehood, the single meaning rule does not apply: see Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd ([2011] QB 497). [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
For the most part it shadows the structure of the 2013 Act, but does suggest some notable alternatives to aspects of the English legislation. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 2:14 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  In TM: Reynolds Wrap v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 3:57 pm by Giles Peaker
With a brief, polite disagreement with Dowding & Reynolds (5th ed para 20-37) on notice being required for the extended covenant, the Court of Appeal concludes. [read post]