Search for: "State v. Hawkins"
Results 441 - 460
of 497
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2007, 9:15 am
J. 389***Christopher V. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 9:47 am
The landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 5:06 am
In Lujan v. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 9:00 pm
Practical Guidance Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Related Content Corporations across the United States are evaluating how they manage diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the workplace in light of the recent Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action policies on the basis of race in education, ( Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 9:29 pm
" See the 2014 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision of Hawkins v. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 7:25 am
See Hawkins v. [read post]
17 Nov 2022, 7:42 am
State v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 1:19 pm
The Supreme Court in eBay v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 3:30 am
Hawkins County Board of Education. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 11:00 am
Urge them to become a member immediately to defend you against the state's unscientific breath test machine. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 10:11 am
In addition to this, all state public defender cases are included. [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 11:50 am
Allen, Jacob Hazelton, Douglas V. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 5:07 am
This issue includes a special dedication to the former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Paul R. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 5:11 am
On the other hand, he said, the Prop 8 opinion is narrow in that it's limited to a state that granted a right and then rescinded it whereas the DOMA case, Gill v. [read post]
9 May 2010, 6:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 10:25 am
State v. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 7:00 am
(Andrew Hawkins, The Verge). [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 3:00 am
(See, for example, Darren Hawkins and Wade Jacoby, here.) [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Hawkins, No. 06-4061 "Conviction and sentence for traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2423(b), are affirmed over claims that: 1) section 2423(b) is an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Power; and 2) the district court erred in relying upon defendant's plea agreement with the government to deny his motions attacking the constitutionality of section 2423(b) on First Amendment… [read post]
