Search for: "U.S. v. Holmes"
Results 421 - 440
of 715
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Nov 2007, 8:47 pm
Crosby, 451 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir.2006) (affirming trial court's denial of federal habeas corpus relief), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1126, 166 L.Ed.2d 897 (2007). [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 12:17 pm
” Patterson v. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 6:52 pm
” Towne v Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918). [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 11:17 pm
(photos courtesy of the U.S. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 4:30 am
Partly because the U.S. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 8:16 am
Judge Neil Gorsuch’s decisions on the U.S. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 1:31 pm
U.S. [read post]
31 May 2012, 11:01 am
Plyler, 457 U.S. at 218 n.14; United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 9:30 pm
The Commerce Clause, in Nation and States,” at the U.S. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 4:50 am
" Here's the description I wrote for the law school's online course catalogue:Since the so-called New Deal Settlement of the late 1930s, courts have largely adhered to the view expressed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in his dissent in Lochner v. [read post]
3 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
Holm (1932) and Arizona Elected Legislature v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
” Fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle will recognize that iterative disjunctive syllogism is nothing other than the process of elimination, as explained by Doyle’s fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 4:13 am
In 1927, Holmes wrote the 8–1 majority opinion in Buck v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 8:40 am
Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, and see Holmes, J., in Gitlow v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 9:24 am
U.S., 379 U.S. 241 (1964).) [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 11:30 am
The U.S. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 5:10 am
But one of the most famous dissents in legal history was by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Lochner v. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 7:00 am
”[15] Two years later, in Bigelow v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 2:27 pm
As Justice Holmes said in a different context in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 12:12 pm
As Lord Mansfield said in 1769, in the case of R. v. [read post]
