Search for: "People v Connor"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,127
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jul 2022, 5:29 am
Casey, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter saved the landmark abortion precedent to ensure that people would not view the Court as a political institution. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 5:10 am
Presumably for these reasons, in the 13 years since we decided Penry v. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 1:54 pm
In the present case, District of Columbia v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 11:37 pm
The landmark Supreme Court case, Brady v. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 5:01 am
Specifically, I explained what had happened in O’Connor et al v. [read post]
17 Mar 2023, 8:50 am
Martinez was part of the legal team that represented the petitioner in the landmark case Griggs v. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 5:06 am
Chief Justice O’Connor and Justices French, Fischer and Stewart joined the majority opinion. [read post]
6 May 2014, 1:00 pm
In Salazar v. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 7:24 am
Groch v. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 8:11 am
Fulton v. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 4:30 am
But the angriest and most upset I ever heard him was about an old concurring opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in Herrera v. [read post]
1 Apr 2019, 6:34 am
Co. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 5:50 pm
O’Connor is a 70-year-old gentleman residing in Beresford, South Dakota with his wife Ruth. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 1:57 pm
Sandra Day O’Connor thought we do. [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 4:46 pm
.' See People v Alamo, 34 NY2d 453, 458 (1974); People v Marriott, 37 AD2d 868 (3d Dept. 1971); People v. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 2:06 pm
Chief Justice Burger and Justices Brennan and O’Connor voted to affirm (though O’Connor later recused after inheriting stock in litigating companies). [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 7:39 pm
Justice O’Connor’s Craig opinion, as a product of the pre-Crawford regime of Ohio v. [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 7:39 pm
Justice O’Connor’s Craig opinion, as a product of the pre-Crawford regime of Ohio v. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 7:47 am
Bush v. [read post]
17 Feb 2008, 6:38 am
In the present case, District of Columbia v. [read post]
