Search for: "HOPE v. STATE"
Results 6941 - 6960
of 16,492
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2022, 4:32 am
But hope springs eternal, so I am expecting some sort of win for SFFA. [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 5:33 pm
It's to be expected, especially since we sort of did it ourselves, but folks with irons in the fire are positioning themselves in advance of next Monday's oral argument in Wyeth v. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 10:14 am
This week in Gunn v. [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 10:40 am
New Jersey in 2000, Ring in 2002, and Hurst v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 9:14 am
Barko v. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 8:03 am
Will’s best hope may be an the Arizona case, Martinez v. [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 10:40 am
New Jersey in 2000, Ring in 2002, and Hurst v. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 9:01 pm
” Famous cases in which the Court has held that speech was impermissibly compelled include: West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 10:02 am
Related PostsJanuary 10, 2011 -- Irish Women Politicians and Abortion: Hope for change after the ECHR ruling (0)December 15, 2010 -- In advance of A, B & C v Ireland: A Primer on the ECtHR (0) [read post]
30 Oct 2016, 7:08 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 5:30 am
United States reaches the Court. [read post]
7 May 2013, 9:01 pm
Although RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments in the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 3:00 am
The GOP-controlled state legislature is hoping the Supreme Court will return control to Phoenix. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 3:58 pm
Case in point, courtesy of Eugene Volokh: a Ninth Circuit decision in United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 4:30 am
In Chapman v. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 3:15 pm
And no state should have passed a copycat law. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 8:40 am
For section 5 to stand, Justice Kennedy would have to accept at least one of these three points: (1) empirical evidence cannot be gathered effectively, precisely because section 5 has been such a good deterrent, and any attempt to compare covered v. non-covered jurisdictions now is bad social science because, as Ellen Katz put it, one patient has undergone treatment and the other has not; (2) Congress is entitled to substantial deference, perhaps especially in the area of eradicating the… [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
The Justice Department’s analysis states that since the Supreme Court’s 1910 ruling in Hass v Henkel and its 1924 ruling in Hammererschmidt v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 1:09 pm
(It now returns to the state Senate for a full vote). [read post]
29 Aug 2021, 9:01 pm
Even with that admission that I do retain a glimmer of hope, however, it is important to understand that hope is not a plan for success. [read post]
