Search for: "Majors v. Majors" Results 6421 - 6440 of 55,566
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2011, 6:38 pm by Patrick
It won’t surprise long-time readers to learn that I approve of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Brown v. [read post]
19 Aug 2015, 1:30 am by Matrix
The Supreme Court in R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57 held by a 3:2 majority that the blanket requirement that all applicants for a student loan have “indefinite leave to remain” is discriminatory and must be amended by the Government. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 1:41 pm by Lyle Denniston
Jackson, et al. (10-735), has been on hold until the case of Wal-Mart v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 9:51 pm by Richard Frank
Supreme Court mavens focused their attention on several new opinions  the Court issued in key cases–including the major climate change decision (in American Electric Power v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 9:15 am by Howard Wasserman
SCOTUS today decided Agency for Int'l Development v. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 4:32 am by Edith Roberts
This morning the court hears oral argument in one of the term’s major cases, Janus v. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 3:51 am by Edith Roberts
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in one of this term’s major cases, June Medical Services v. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 10:00 am
While not all law is politics, much is, as the line-up in Massachusetts v. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 12:46 pm
 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has made a significant ruling in Adams v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 10:30 am by Tom Webley
A 5-4 decision was issued by the Supreme Court, where the majority (Alito, J.) found that the plaintiffs had no Article III standing to sue. [read post]
15 Sep 2023, 8:38 am by Eric Goldman
The opinion was a major and potentially troubling development in Internet Law, so I planned to blog it. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 10:06 am by Steve Bainbridge
The Supreme Court today issued a unanimous decision in Jones v. [read post]
27 May 2008, 12:42 pm
  But apparently reluctant to go so far as to apply strict scrutiny absent an explicit go-ahead from the Court, the panel majority borrowed a rigorous-but-not-quite-strict form of heightened scrutiny from the Court's decision in Sell v. [read post]