Search for: "State v. Sotomayor"
Results 4881 - 4900
of 5,862
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2011, 8:22 am
Justice Sotomayor suggested to him that the Fifth Circuit’s “incidental” damages test set forth in Alison v. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 10:05 am
Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Wal-Mart Stores v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 7:52 pm
" Justice Ginsburg on the facts: In Brady v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 12:32 pm
Plaintiffs' counsel issued this press release, stating that they "? [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 10:23 am
Reports are staring to come in about today's Supreme Court oral argument in Dukes v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 10:23 am
Reports are staring to come in about today's Supreme Court oral argument in Dukes v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 5:27 am
In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 6:31 am
Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan peppered Mr. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 5:10 am
But Justice Sotomayor’s is having none of this. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 12:58 pm
Such a case was J.D.B. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 12:29 pm
At yesterday’s oral argument in Fox v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 3:51 pm
The state court majority went on to rely upon the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the 2004 decision in the Yarborough v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:04 pm
Matrixx Initiatives Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 11:40 am
Supreme Court unanimously decided, in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 11:28 am
A unanimous Supreme Court upheld a decision by a 9th Circuit panel in Matrixx Initiatives Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 10:08 am
On February 28, 2011, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Michigan v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 8:03 am
Today the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion (per Justice Sotomayor) in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 7:53 am
Kasten v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 9:23 am
Michigan v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 1:42 pm
The Court extended that Amendment, and with it, the exclusionary rule, to state and local governments in the 1961 case of Mapp v. [read post]