Search for: "Roberts v. State"
Results 5601 - 5620
of 16,957
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2019, 8:59 am
Hopefully he merely has a position like Justice Roberts's, that he does not think the state court followed the precedent, without revisiting the issues decided there. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 6:50 pm
United States Docket Filing | Questions Presented Case Number: 07-10441 On Appeal From: USCA-3 Date Argued: January 21, 2009 Date Decided: April 6, 2009 5-4; Vacated and Remanded Majority: Souter(m), Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent: Alito(d), Roberts, Scalia, Thomas Days between argument and opinion: 75 (42) United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm
Dorf is the Robert S. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
Roberts, Jr., and Justice Antonin Scalia. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 8:01 am
Miller v. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 9:44 am
July 23, 2014); Roberts. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 1:01 am
Perhaps the most important such case was West Coast Hotel v. [read post]
30 Jun 2024, 2:36 pm
" First, United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 6:50 pm
National Security Archive v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 3:44 am
The issues in this case were identical to those in Roberts v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 5:19 am
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, did say this in a footnote:The dissent asserts that our position "resembles" Justice Harlan's dissent in Miranda v. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 8:03 am
Roberts (Utah 2020); see also Doe A. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 1:35 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 2:24 pm
In Buchanan v. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
Chief Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration that led to denial of review of EPA v. [read post]
12 Mar 2023, 2:14 pm
Roberts, Jr., What Makes the D. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 11:24 am
Supreme Court in Shelby County v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 11:24 am
Supreme Court in Shelby County v. [read post]
3 Jul 2021, 10:26 am
The statute contains viewpoint and content-based restrictions to speech which are subject to strict scrutiny as per prior precedent like Reed v. [read post]
