Search for: "Thomas v. Held"
Results 4241 - 4260
of 7,218
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2023, 7:49 am
Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Pro- tection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 1:21 am
She distinguished between the attitudes held by members of the Appellant’s church, which is a smaller subset of the greater community. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 1:09 pm
James Sch. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2023, 4:51 pm
The decision concerned a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad which held that the Sedition Act 1920 is consistent with the country’s 1976 Constitution. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 10:56 am
On that day, in Wilkerson v. [read post]
12 Dec 2006, 4:03 pm
Carey v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 7:32 am
Sanchez-Benitez v. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 2:08 am
CGEYE, Inc. c/o Thomas Siedleczka, FA0611000844252 (Nat. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 6:35 am
Holder and Hardy v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 10:08 am
The foundation filed cert-stage and merits-stage amicus briefs in support of the government in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 5:05 pm
I last attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the Trump v. [read post]
18 May 2020, 9:00 pm
In a recent ruling, Durham v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:10 am
Thomas held is an “extraordinary circumstance” equitably excusing a resulting failure to appeal a denial of state habeas relief, is likewise an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting reentry of a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) where the abandonment caused the failure to appeal a denial of federal habeas relief. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 1:40 pm
Six years ago, in Roper v. [read post]
15 Jul 2024, 9:00 pm
Thomas in 1987 and Gilmer v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 4:17 am
” At The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Andrew Michaels discusses SAS Institute Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 11:18 am
Gould v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 6:12 pm
Thomas (1988) 863 F.2d 622). [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 7:43 am
This part of the opinion strongly reaffirms the holding in Massachusetts v. [read post]
