Search for: "STEVEN T. O"
Results 441 - 460
of 1,875
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2019, 2:28 pm
The en banc court holds that Depue didn’t know what he was giving up, so he didn’t waive. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 10:32 am
By Alan T. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 5:56 pm
Stevens, 528 U.S. 765 (2000). [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 11:27 am
Id. at *4 (“[T]his challenge first appears in her reply brief. [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 11:42 am
For anyone working through a post-Johnson categorical analysis (and who isn’t?) [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:51 am
Shannon Kathleen O’Byrne, Cindy A. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:37 am
• Steven B. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:37 am
• Steven B. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 8:50 am
And I love the Steven Pinker stuff. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 10:37 am
Dissenting Judge Paez didn’t buy the reasoning in Turvin. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 11:26 am
(Many Justices don't write or join opinions related to the refusal to hear a case.) [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:03 pm
After all, “nobody was demanding that John Paul Stevens retire,” and he was 90. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 4:39 pm
How to Use: Don’t concede a Fourth challenge because of Lamar Johnson: preserve. [read post]
19 Jan 2019, 9:52 am
’ Or, as the trial judge rather succinctly put it,’[o]nce the exigency ends, it ends. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 2:07 pm
Marshall voted alongside Blackmun, Brennan, Stevens and O’Connor to hold that a creche inside a courthouse was an endorsement of Christianity in violation of the establishment clause. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm
In the following guest post, Paul Ferrillo, Robert Horowitz, and Steven Margolin of the Greenberg Traurig law firm take a look at the Blue Apron decision and examine whether or not Congress will act to eliminate concurrent state court jurisdiction for state court claims. [read post]
4 Jan 2019, 2:11 pm
Having ducked a ruling on the merits of partisan gerrymandering last year, it seems unlikely that the justices will do so again, but they won’t have much time. [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 3:46 am
Briefly: At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie notes that “[i]t has been a fairly quiet few months at the Supreme Court,” but “that may change as 2019 begins”: “The justices have already accepted three high-profile cases to be heard in the spring,” and their “next private conference on January 4th could include a range of hot-button cases that would shove the court further into the limelight. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
James O. [read post]
23 Dec 2018, 11:02 am
That curious complaint doesn’t even merit discussion in this mem. disp. [read post]
