Search for: "People of the State of New York v. Smith"
Results 481 - 500
of 872
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2014, 3:11 am
” Briefly: In an op-ed for The New York Times, Neal Katyal discusses the Court’s recent unanimous opinions, arguing that such unanimity “is important because it signals that the justices can rise above their differences and interpret the law without partisanship. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm
They located 12 Robert Johnsons and brought them to New York for an interview. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 6:31 am
” Wyoming v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 2:18 pm
” Smith relied on an earlier case, United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 8:17 am
David Hyman says that at Netflix they think about how they would feel if what they advised showed up on the New York Times as a litmus test for integrity. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 2:22 pm
People v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 9:12 am
I don’t entirely agree with him — I’m one of the few people who thinks Buckley v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 4:32 am
And one state’s high court (in New York) interpreted the state constitution as applying a less protective religious exemption regime, somewhere between the old Sherbert approach and the Smith approach. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 7:28 am
According to the AP, New Hampshire is the 43rd state to introduce such legislation. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 11:11 am
Linda Greenhouse’s recent opinion piece in The New York Times provides an illustration. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 2:07 pm
In the “good old days” of Smith v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 9:17 am
New York’s highest court, as it happens, has interpreted the New York Constitution as providing some modest across-the-board protection for religious objectors: [W]hen the State imposes “an incidental burden on the right to free exercise of religion” we must consider the interest advanced by the legislation that imposes the burden, and that “[t]he respective interests must be balanced to determine whether the incidental burdening… [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 2:00 pm
Pauley III of the Southern District of New York held that bulk telephony metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is lawful, and therefore granted the government’s motion to dismiss in ACLU v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 5:25 pm
Smith, 87 N.Y.2d 715, 720, 721, 642 N.Y.S.2d 568, 665 N.E.2d 138 (1996); People v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 6:17 am
Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 390, 494 N.E.2d 77, 81 (1986) The United States Supreme Court explained division of authority in New York v Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000):What suffices for waiver depends on the nature of the right at issue. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 6:43 pm
Smith, 87 N.Y.2d 715, 721, quoting People v. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 12:51 pm
In People v. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 12:09 pm
What accounts for the new change in attitude? [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 7:05 am
According to the civil liberties group:The government relies on a 1979 case, Smith v. [read post]
