Search for: "Black v. State" Results 5081 - 5100 of 9,186
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2014, 9:00 am by Jamie Maclaren
At the furthest extreme, the website therealbigots.com states that the Law Society of Upper Canada’s refusal to approve TWU Law is “the modern equivalent of a “No Blacks Allowed” sign on a restaurant in the 1960’s [sic] in the Deep South. [read post]
13 Jan 2025, 9:30 pm by ernst
  These included two that reached the Supreme Court: Powell v. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 5:32 am
The procedure was used in the case of United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2008, 9:16 am
  This, of course, is one of those ridiculous legal fictions that only a court could indulge.Orin Kerr notes the decision by 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell in United States v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 6:37 am
    Swap the non-distinctive words and add a house mark: not enough to avoid conflictWEALTHSMART v UBS SMARTWEALTH O/094/18 UK opposition (February 2018)For those involved in brand clearance, this is an illustration of the state of the Thomson Life principle in action before the UKIPO. [read post]
1 Sep 2024, 8:41 am by Eugene Volokh
From last week's decision in Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 3:03 am by SHG
When the Court affirmed this in the 5-4 decision of Grutter v. [read post]
29 Jan 2022, 3:10 pm by Eugene Volokh
Now the phrase "lesser black woman" is a bad way of putting this, but it seems to me pretty clear that it was just a poorly chosen way of saying "less qualified black woman. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 2:06 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Cotter, Nominal Damages—and Nominal Damages Workarounds—in Intellectual Property Law TransUnion v. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 31 Oct-1 Nov 2017. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 4:43 am
  Louisiana joined the fray late in Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 7:41 am
On page 11 of the opinion, to support the argument that the interpretation of words in the Constitution should be given a uniform meaning -- a proposition with which I generally agree -- Justice Richman first cites and relies upon the Supreme Court's opinion in Tidewater (which held that the District of Columbia was not a "State" for Article III diversity purposes). [read post]