Search for: "State v. Sotomayor"
Results 4081 - 4100
of 5,862
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 May 2016, 9:39 am
Corp. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 10:59 am
United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), Justice Scalia applied the rule first formulated in Katz v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 5:00 am
Bauman v. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 12:46 am
Six justices agreed that in certain circumstances, a state supreme court’s recharacterization of property from private to public would violate the Constitution; the four-justice Scalia-led plurality concluded it would be a Takings Clause problem, while Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Sotomayor, saw it as involving the legitimacy of the state court’s action – in other words, substantive due process. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 3:23 pm
Robert Thomas, Tred Eyerly and I filed an amicus curiae brief in the case of Stop the Beach Renourishment v. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:09 am
Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2022, 10:03 am
Locke v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 7:39 am
Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2009, 5:23 am
Sotomayor: The Use of Gender-Coded Language to Evaluate a Judge's "Temperament"Earth to Orrin Hatch: Even Conservative Judges Make Policy! [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 10:10 am
The decision in the case of Arizona v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:17 pm
Board of Education and Loving v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 6:29 am
And in Kurns v. [read post]
21 Jul 2013, 8:17 am
The New Jersey court unanimously stepped up to say what Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested in a lone concurrence in US v. [read post]
18 May 2023, 9:01 pm
Last week, in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. [read post]
18 Oct 2013, 11:32 am
Separately, Judge McLaughlin notes Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Jones, which suggested a possible revision, down the line, of the sometimes loathed, sometimes loved, “third-party” rule, laid out in Smith v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 7:42 pm
This was a unanimous decision – and written by Justice Sotomayor. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 4:00 am
The article has been cited in papers submitted to the United States Supreme Court in the upcoming case of Stolt-Nielsen SA v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 4:25 pm
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg are pretty obvious votes for the mandate, as they dissented in United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2020, 12:11 pm
The Court split 5-4, with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent. [read post]
3 Dec 2014, 6:50 am
The Court heard argument Monday in Perez v. [read post]
