Search for: "U. S. v. Kennedy" Results 461 - 480 of 731
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2011, 7:27 am by Eugene Volokh
Even though the standards of the law are borrowed largely from similar laws related to the distribution of sexually themed materials to minors (see Ginsberg v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:26 pm by Josh Blackman
S. 602 (1971) which adopted a test under which any law whose "principal or primary effect" "was to advance religion" was unconstitutional. 7 See Kennedy v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 8:52 am by Timothy P. Flynn, Esq.
 Olson and Boies will probably need to persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy, an oft-breaker of ties at the Court. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 10:46 am by Kent Scheidegger
  Here is the essence of today's holding:Three Terms ago, in Johnson v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 9:03 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 Olson and Boies will probably need to persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy, an oft-breaker of ties at the Court. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 11:07 pm
The Supreme Court has decided the case of Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 11:56 am by Eduardo Penalver
  But where the state court is merely adjudicating between private actors -- as it is in most common law property, contract, and torts cases -- the proper rubric seems to me to be Justice Kennedy's due-process analysis.UPDATE:  Proving that there's no idea I can have that Lior Strahilevitz can't have more clearly and at least five days sooner, here's a link to his excellent post from a few days ago at the U. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 9:21 am by Lyle Denniston
This was the first court filing by the federal government in the wake of Monday’s ruling in Burwell v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 8:38 am by Lyle Denniston
  This was the first court filing by the   federal government in the wake of Monday’s ruling in Burwell v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:49 pm
Justice Kennedy penned the 9-0 decision. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 10:24 am by Jeff Redding
  However, much of the rest of Justice Kennedys discussion in United States v. [read post]