Search for: "Bullet v. State" Results 761 - 780 of 1,409
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2011, 12:39 pm by Steve Bainbridge
As far as securities and the economy in general are concerned, once Wickard v. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 7:43 pm by Kevin Funnell
The standard was meant to repeal the agency's sweeping 2004 preemption rules, returning it to the so-called 'Barnett standard' established by the 1996 Supreme Court case of Barnett V. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 11:12 am by Ashoka Mukpo
By then, police had begun to attack and beat demonstrators in Minneapolis, New York, and others in states everywhere, escalating tensions as smaller groups broke into shops and set fire to police cars. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 10:23 am by David Kopel
On May 19, 2022, Cornell penned an article castigating in advance the Supreme Court for being likely to uphold the right to bear arms in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm by NL
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a request for an oral hearing… [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm by NL
The respondent's skeleton argument cites in support of that proposition R v Gloucestershire County Council ex p Barry [1997] AC 584, esp at 604E-F and 605 (Lord Nicholls), R v East Sussex County Council ex p Tandy [1997] AC 714, esp at 747B (Lord Browne-Wilkinson), and Ali v Birmingham CC [2010] UKSC 8; [2010] 2 AC 39, at [4] -[6] (Lord Hope). [57] And finally, Bury v Gibbons was a case in which the Authority had simply ignored a request for an oral hearing… [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 6:39 am by Rick Hills
Of course not: Not even Justice Scalia would bite that bullet in the name of textualism. [read post]