Search for: "GROUP v. STATE"
Results 7321 - 7340
of 37,551
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2012, 1:24 pm
As summarized in CJLF's brief in Graham v. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 1:41 am
In the recent case of Flood v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 2:28 pm
Hill v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 3:00 am
In the face of states’ failure of to take up codification of crimes against humanity, a group of distinguished experts working under the auspices of the Harris Institute at Washington University recently drafted a proposed international convention for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. [read post]
2 Sep 2024, 6:11 am
The Case of Padilla v. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 8:53 pm
” Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 17-11414 (D. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 12:10 am
Yesterday in Cheenath v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 6:37 am
ASCAP v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 12:26 am
In Vialpando v. [read post]
30 May 2008, 9:53 am
See People of State of Cal. v. [read post]
29 May 2010, 8:56 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 10:54 am
In an October 2 ruling in Strong v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 3:56 am
State, Georgia, United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 10:31 am
In Prescod, et al. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 9:08 am
Last year, in District Attorney’s Office v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 7:18 am
”) (emphasis added); United States v. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 2:48 am
Davis, 100 U.S. 257 (1880), and discussed the modern statute in Mesa v. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 8:42 am
The court summarizes: The primary effect of the DPIA provision is to compel speech…The State cannot insulate a specific provision of law from a facial challenge under the First Amendment by bundling it with other, separate provisions that do not implicate the First Amendment The court also says that the DPIA requirement “deputizes covered businesses into serving as censors for the State” because the DPIA risk “factors require consideration of content or… [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 6:02 am
United States, 10-8659, Garcia v. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 6:39 am
There are several motives to lie, United States v. [read post]
