Search for: "People v. Murphy" Results 41 - 60 of 674
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Nov 2022, 5:30 am
The First Department clapped back at the Second Department in Estate of Murphy, v New York City Hous. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 6:38 am by Jennifer González
However, the precise definition of obscenity was unclear, and the Supreme Court would not rule that obscenity was not constitutionally protected speech until Roth v. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 4:32 pm by Mark Walsh
And Paul Clement, now of the boutique firm Clement & Murphy, is seated at the second case counsel table to await argument in Helix Energy Solutions Group v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 5:35 am by Jack Goldsmith
In that respect, Pennsylvania's law is influencing what Fox in New York is allowed to say to people all over the country (indeed, all over the world). [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
White Coats in the State Capital: OB-GYNs become political force in abortion wars Yahoo News – Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly (Politico) | Published: 8/22/2022 Physicians, many of whom have never mobilized politically, are banding together in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. [read post]
5 Aug 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Justice Department has charged five people for making threats of violence against election workers amid a rising wave of harassment and intimidation tied to the 2020 presidential race, a top official told the Senate Judiciary Committee. [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Becerra (2018) (dealing with compelled speech regarding abortion), and Janus v. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 4:52 am by Emma Snell
The Marquette Law School poll, which was conducted just days after the court overturned Roe v. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 2:50 pm by Josh H. Escovedo
Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, released its decision in NCAA v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 2:05 pm by INFORRM
In Murphy v IRTC Barrington J gave two examples of the common good: the case concerned a ban on religious advertising in section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act, 1988 (also here), and Barrington J (at [30]) held that the ban in section 10(3) could be justified either to prevent public unrest, or to ensure that, in matters of sensitivity, rich people “should not be able to buy access to the airwaves to the detriment of their poorer… [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 5:58 am by Bernard Bell
& RICHARD MURPHY, 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PRACTICE §3.13 (3d ed. [read post]
Gobitis, Justice Murphy regretted his decision and instructed his law clerk to look for an opportunity to overrule it. [read post]