Search for: "Kennedy v. State"
Results 5521 - 5540
of 8,225
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2011, 1:50 am
Co. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 9:25 pm
By Ben Wolf* and Jeff Wasserstein – Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in today’s 6-3 decision in Sorrell v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 6:33 pm
I have previously commented on Sorrell v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 6:20 pm
Jane wrote an amicus brief in IMS v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 3:33 pm
EMA, concerning the constitutionality of state regulation of violent video games, and McComish v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 3:14 pm
The case of Sorrell v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 2:35 pm
As Justice Kennedy stated in Gonzales v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:33 pm
See Lochner v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 12:35 pm
The case of Bullcoming v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 12:10 pm
Justice Kennedy, the "swing justice" of the current Court, wrote the opinion. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 11:46 am
Justice Kennedy had the fourth opinion of the day, in Freeman v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 11:15 am
But in Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 9:28 am
" Many chapters have been added since.Justice Kennedy also writes, "the States are not just at risk of having some of their hearsay rules reviewed by this Court. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 9:23 am
09-1039), and Actavis, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 8:41 am
The opinion is Sorrell v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 8:34 am
Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 8:07 am
United States, but this time Justice Kennedy joined the four liberal justices to hold that criminal defendants who enter into plea agreements can benefit from retroactive changes to the sentencing guidelines.In CSX Transportation v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 8:03 am
United States, No. 09-10245. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 8:06 pm
Kennedy, actually under the state court opinion on remand which is better, that this prosecutor caused mistrial is a double jeopardy bar. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 1:07 pm
Specifically, the Court stated the displacement test as simply “whether the statute speaks directly to the question at issue,” and that in this case, Massachusetts v. [read post]
