Search for: "People v Perry"
Results 401 - 420
of 880
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm
The case, Harris et al. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
He says, for example, drawing on the gender-based peremptory case, J.E.B. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2007, 6:12 pm
Supreme Court announced that it would hear Baze v. [read post]
20 Aug 2015, 5:00 am
Levow fights for the rights of people who are facing charges of alleged DWI in New Jersey courts. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 10:28 am
One check on the peremptory is that, since Batson v. [read post]
29 May 2008, 7:47 am
People v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 6:41 pm
For example, in Ellis v. [read post]
Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land
21 Feb 2019, 10:37 am
In 1971, in a case called Lemon v. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 9:30 am
Perry, which declined to rule on a California initiative banning gay marriage because the parties lacked standing. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 9:30 am
Perry, which declined to rule on a California initiative banning gay marriage because the parties lacked standing. [read post]
10 May 2016, 9:12 am
Perry, Bonezzi Switzer Polito & Hupp Co. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 3:48 am
Perry v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 1:45 pm
Griswold v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 11:17 am
These sites were changing their layout, or in some cases even going offline, to protest the Communications Decency Act, signed on February 8 by President Bill Clinton as Title V of the landmark Telecommunication Act. [read post]
10 Dec 2020, 7:44 am
Perry, 2020 WL 1275221 (C.D. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 8:20 am
(Eugene Volokh) From Boggerty v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 12:32 pm
Perry, docket 12-144). [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 2:06 pm
Wainwright (the 1963 decision requiring that poor people be represented by counsel when charged with serious crimes) and Mapp v. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 9:34 pm
Board of Freeholders, No. 10-945, asks whether people arrested and held for minor offenses may be routinely strip-searched.The court will also consider, in Maples v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 1:05 pm
Perhaps courts can't base (or, at least, publicly admit that their basing their decisions) exclusively on "possible effects," but, going back to Marbury and foreword to the embarrassing decision a couple of years ago finding a lack of standing in Perry v. [read post]
