Search for: "STEVENS v. STATE" Results 4141 - 4160 of 7,052
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2011, 7:30 am by Marissa Miller
Finally, at the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr weighs in on the first question presented in United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
That testimony killed the plaintiff's standard product liability case, because under California (and almost all other states') law, a plaintiff cannot establish causation in an inadequate warning case where the prescribing physician did not rely upon the allegedly defective warning. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 4:31 pm
The state's appeal is in Quarterman v. [read post]
12 May 2022, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Perhaps the best starting point for analysis of the compelled-speech realm remains Wooley v. [read post]
25 Oct 2008, 5:05 pm
Mukasey    Board of Immigration Appeals 08a0621n.06 Steven Landis v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 8:08 am by Erin Miller
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that the State of Washington filed its brief yesterday in Doe #1 v. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 6:55 am by James Bickford
  On Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, Ashby Jones discussed the West Virginia Senate vote to offer public funding to candidates for the state supreme court in the aftermath of Caperton v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
Steven Mazie takes a quick look at the remaining cases for The Economist’s Espresso blog. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 10:02 pm by Amy Howe
” In The Economist, Steven Mazie looks at a recent decision by the Eighth Circuit holding that a North Dakota law which prohibited abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected is unconstitutional, noting that it “closed with a five-page lament: North Dakota’s law may be inconsistent with Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood, but the Supreme Court should ‘re-evaluate its jurisprudence. [read post]
19 May 2016, 4:06 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on Monday’s decision in Spokeo v. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 10:41 am by Kent Scheidegger
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. [read post]