Search for: "Howard Wasserman"
Results 481 - 500
of 549
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2017, 4:17 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from the court’s decision on Monday to deny review of a lower court’s ruling granting qualified immunity on summary judgment to a police officer who was sued for shooting a suspect, observing that the dissent “highlights the Court’s failure to intervene in this and similar cases in which summary judgment is (erroneously) granted against § 1983 plaintiffs, while… [read post]
11 May 2020, 3:24 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman notes that “Justice Thomas called for reconsidering qualified immunity in his concurring opinion in Ziglar v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 9:01 pm
(And thanks to Howard Wasserman for prompting me to talk a little bit about this.) [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 9:22 am
A sober legal analysis of the claims comes from Howard Wasserman at the Sports Law Blog (via TortsProf) and a snarky analysis from David Nieporent at Overlawyered;As we get ready for trial, we always wonder about juries and jury selection. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 4:06 am
Howard Wasserman has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Nieves v. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 4:11 am
Howard Wasserman comments on the scope of nationwide injunctions by analyzing a footnote in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, and James Phillips examines a footnote in Justice Elena Kagan’s concurrence and argues that it misreads the majority opinion Kagan joined in Our Lady of Guadalupe. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:05 am
(See Margot Kaminski, Paul Ohm, Howard Wasserman, Tom Goldstein, and the terrifyingly prolific Orin Kerr.) [read post]
29 May 2018, 4:13 am
” Howard Wasserman shares his impressions of “RBG,” the new documentary about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at PrawfsBlawg. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 8:57 am
PPS: I'm just now noticing Howard Wasserman's PrawfsBlawg post, which summarizes these two bills and some additional proposals as well (also courtesy of Ed). [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:43 am
Still more commentary comes from Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice; from Adam Winkler at the Huffington Post; at PrawfsBlawg, where posts come from Richard Re, Howard Wasserman (who has four posts on the decision and how it is being implemented), Paul Horwitz, Rick Hills, and Hadar Aviram; from Karl Laird at the Oxford Human Rights Hub; at the Human Rights at Home Blog from Noah Novogrodsky; and from John Culhane for POLITICO. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 5:33 am
Commentary on the case comes from Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog, who writes that the Court’s “relatively short and unanimous opinion breaks no new ground”; from Garrett Epps of The Atlantic, who predicts that both the Ohio law at issue in the case and other similar laws will “go down in the next few years”; from Lisa Soronen at the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, who observes that the case “should be of more interest… [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 4:25 am
Howard Wasserman analyzes the argument for this blog. [read post]
21 May 2010, 7:19 am
” Howard Wasserman responds to Fontana’s article on PrawfsBlawg, saying “[t]he whole piece is worth a read” but that he is unconvinced by Fontana’s description of a lack of eligible liberals to serve as federal judges. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:20 am
” Additional commentary comes from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg. [read post]
5 May 2020, 3:54 am
” Additional commentary comes from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, who remarks that “[t]he big difference” from in-person arguments “is that the Justices were less the stars,” Josh Blackman at Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog (via How Appealing), Elie Mystal at The Nation, and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, which observes that the unprecedented teleconference format offered “a great chance for the public to witness the… [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 5:02 pm
With the case being released on a Friday during Wimbledon (see Howard Wasserman's post below about the longest match in the history of professional tennis), most mainstream news outlets probably won't write about the case until next week. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 4:16 pm
In an excellent analysis of the case for SCOTUSblog, Professor Howard Wasserman noted that repeated instances of laughter interrupted the oral arguments: “Anyone who believes civil procedure is not funny should read the transcript of Tuesday’s argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 4:15 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman remarks that “[t]he opinions seemed to look at different facts triggering different analyses. [read post]
14 Dec 2019, 3:58 am
That’s not really an accurate description nor a realistic concern, as Howard Wasserman explains. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am
In the immediate aftermath of the decision, Howard Wasserman argued that the Court's position was the best approach in light of the Court's efforts to tighten the definition of jurisdiction in recent years. [read post]
