Search for: "State v. Robert Williams" Results 421 - 440 of 2,648
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2020, 1:57 pm by Schachtman
Susan Haack has written frequently about expert witness testimony in the United States legal system. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 6:32 am by Howard M. Wasserman
Roberts did not accept that the State Department lacked information to make a recommendation. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 8:34 am by Eugene Volokh
Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 349 (1974), which limits presumed damages in libel cases brought by private figures? [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
”One of the questions that came up when Judge Bork was testifying at his hearing had to do with the right of married couples to use contraceptives, as established in Griswold v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 6:02 am by Eugene Volokh
[Bystander Robert] Williams testified that defendant stated that he was going to "shoot up the building" and also threatened to shoot Williams. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 11:53 am by Nathan Dorn
London: Bradbury and Evans, 1854-1872, 25 v. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
The elected Arizona legislature (and Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent), like the Rehnquist concurrence in Bush v. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 9:16 am by Connor Clerkin, Lane Corrigan
The court did not issue a majority opinion, but in multiple concurrences, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh criticized the federal court’s intervention in state election procedures. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 1:16 pm by Lorenzo d’Aubert, Eric Halliday
Barrett’s willingness to look past possible abuse of discretion and violation of due process decried by the dissenting judges echoes Chief Justice John Roberts’s deferential reasoning in Trump v. [read post]
18 Oct 2020, 5:58 pm by Matt Cooper
District Judge Robert Pitman involving drop-boxes while an appeal proceeds. [read post]
18 Oct 2020, 3:15 pm by Ilya Somin
As far back as 1973, Justice William Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. [read post]