Search for: "People v. Holmes"
Results 501 - 520
of 763
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Aug 2012, 3:43 pm
Another: Holmes was right, better to have judges not try. [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 8:00 am
Holmes, 143 F. [read post]
20 May 2010, 1:06 pm
” Gitlow, 268 U.S. at 672 (Holmes, J., dissenting); see also Meyer v. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 5:01 am
Holmes, III in Doe v. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 1:01 pm
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 4:25 pm
For instance, in Schenck v. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 5:45 am
In Burlington v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:13 pm
That's really a stupid slogan, since, as Holmes said, taxes are the price we pay for civilization (even if we recognize the possibility of taxes being excessive). [read post]
12 May 2010, 4:10 pm
Or she could be asked to discuss Bruce Ackerman's Holmes Lectures, which were reprinted in the Harvard Law Review. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 9:36 am
Didn't Oliver Wendell Holmes give it a big push with The Common Law in 1909 or so? [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 9:23 am
The 6th Circuit ruling in USA v. [read post]
20 May 2014, 6:08 am
This fixation on the Warren and Burger Courts is a symptom of a larger dis-ease: Whether you are a judge or an advocate, a bureaucrat or a legislative counsel, the place to begin your study of the modern Constitution is with the great decisions of a long line of Justices from Holmes to Scalia. [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 5:13 pm
A California appellate court will address this question in People v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
The original statement comes from Justice Holmes, who wrote in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
The original statement comes from Justice Holmes, who wrote in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:00 pm
(For more evidence of lawyerly shabbiness in earlier stages of Moore v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 3:04 pm
Up to $8000 per work—the statute says up to $150,000, but a jury has awarded that in Capitol Records v. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 3:19 am
Considering all of these cases together, the court seems posed to further promote a robust “free trade in ideas,” which was a theory first invoked in 1919 by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Abrams v. [read post]
14 Nov 2021, 6:30 am
’ Hirabayashi v. [read post]
