Search for: "Davis v. Washington" Results 661 - 680 of 1,113
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm by John Dean
Republican obstructionism is once again controlling Washington. [read post]
27 May 2024, 9:12 pm
     I believe that the Supreme Court will decide Smith v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:28 am by Edith Roberts
” At the George Washington Law Review’s Notice and Comment blog, Anita Sinha responds to the court’s decision in the entry-ban case, Trump v. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 11:56 am by Chris Winkelman and Philip Gordon
The Supreme Court has wrestled with the concept of how much partisanship is too much since first finding partisan-gerrymandering claims justiciable in Davis v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm by Joshua Matz
” Wired reports on Bowman v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 7:08 am by David LaBahn
The Washington Post recently reported that requests under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
7 Nov 2012, 3:54 am by Rob Robinson
 http://bit.ly/Q6ve6D (Shannon Kirk) Government eDiscovery Needs and Challenges (Audio) - http://bit.ly/SVlTvu (Allison Stanton) Litigation Holds: Seven Steps For Companies Facing Lawsuits or Investigations - http://bit.ly/WcbAca (Mary Jacoby) TAR Update: Precision, Recall, F-measure & Kleen Products Revisited - http://bit.ly/RR5PJs (Michelle Lange, Ralph Losey) Technology and Tactics7 Master Data Management Project Best Practices… [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 3:46 am by Edith Roberts
Supreme Court was petitioned recently to take up Higginson v. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 6:50 am by Jay Willis
  The Washington Briefs blog also has coverage. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 3:23 am
.:11A317 DAVIS, ANTHONY TROY V. [read post]
21 May 2017, 4:41 pm by INFORRM
The Volokh Conspiracy column in the Washington Post draws attention to more apparently fake defendant libel claims which appear to be aimed at removing material from Google. [read post]
4 Feb 2007, 11:59 pm
Clark Martin, who retired from Vinson & Elkins on Jan. 1, says among those planning to join Kelly Hart as Houston partners are two V&E partners who are close to that firm's mandatory retirement age of 67, and former Enron Corp. general counsel James V. [read post]
9 Nov 2006, 5:17 pm
The elaboration that "the intent of a questioner is relevant only if it could affect a reasonable declarant's expectations" is, I think, the best way of making sense of a rather confusing aspect of the opinion in Davis v. [read post]