Search for: "ROBERT CLAYTON v. THE STATE" Results 41 - 60 of 206
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2023, 12:24 pm by Joseph A. Grundfest
Pirani, a unanimous United States Supreme Court voted in support of the amicus position I advocated with former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton. [read post]
18 Sep 2010, 10:31 am by John McFarland
The suit, Mesa Water, L.P. and G&J Ranch, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 9:02 pm by Joanna L. Grossman and Deborah L. Brake
Clayton County is more than a decent substitute. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 3:36 am by SHG
The holding of Bostock v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 2:30 pm by Guest Blogger
Before joining the Court, Justice Kavanaugh had voiceddoubts about the soundness of the Watergate precedents, specifically, the Court’s unanimous United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 4:43 am by James Romoser
” But, he continues, “it was by no means the final legal battle over educational choice in the United States. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 5:21 am by James Romoser
Clayton County is the beginning, not the end, of the fight against anti-LGBTQ discrimination. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 6:10 am
Regency: Limited Partnerships and Fiduciary Duties Posted by Robert C. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 3:56 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Brennan Center for Justice, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy writes that if the Supreme Court rules for the “faithless elector” in Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 7:36 am by Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman
This article is part of a SCOTUSblog symposium on the Roberts court and the religion clauses. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 3:47 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal, law student Clayton Smith discusses the central issues in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 9:38 am by NCC Staff
Clayton County (applying Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination in employment to sexual orientation and gender identity) and McGirt v. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 6:36 am by Resnick Law Group, P.C.
While the majority decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, does not specifically state this, Justice Thomas writes in a concurring opinion that “Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled. [read post]