Search for: "State v. Core"
Results 7941 - 7960
of 7,977
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2007, 4:44 pm
But Ginsburg revised the state court's construction of state laws.Ginsburg doesn't even attempt to explain why it was wrong as a matter of constitutional principle for Bush v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 4:02 pm
In Capital v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 10:30 am
Marbury v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 10:24 pm
" United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2007, 10:10 am
It is Medellin v. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 1:26 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKLegal Profession Legal Malpractice Action Ruled Not 'Core' To Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceeding Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of VWE Group Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 8:58 pm
See Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae at 26, Watters v. [read post]
15 Dec 2006, 11:39 am
#5: Omega Travel v. [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 10:14 pm
The Supreme Court increasingly consults such external norms as persuasive authority; most recently, it found support in a European human rights judgment for its conclusion in Lawrence v. [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 1:24 pm
On Wednesday, December 13, the California Court of Appeal, 4th District will hear argument in an adult use case the City of Encinitas won in the trial court in May 2005 -- City of Encinitas v. [read post]
10 Dec 2006, 9:15 pm
More than that: it was at the very core of his supposed scholarship. [read post]
4 Dec 2006, 10:20 pm
Here is the abstract:At its core, the "province and duty of the judicial department [is] to say what the law is. [read post]
1 Dec 2006, 9:44 am
Briggs v. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 7:02 am
., v. [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 11:25 am
I am opposed to the proposed rules on three grounds -- a misunderstanding of the concept of ethics (see Bates et. al. v State Bar of Arizona); the rules themselves will not likely be upheld at the first legal challenge to them; and there is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of marketing for lawyers and the long-term effects of Bates in serving both law firms and, most significantly, clients. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 4:40 am
Knauer (Temple University - Beasley School of Law) has posted LAWRENCE v. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 1:29 pm
I am opposed to the proposed rules on three grounds -- a misunderstanding of the concept of ethics (see Bates et. al. v State Bar of Arizona); the rules themselves will not likely be upheld at the first legal challenge to them; and there is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of marketing for lawyers and the long-term effects of Bates in serving both law firms and, most significantly, clients. [read post]
9 Nov 2006, 6:07 am
I think that this holding is not only unwise but inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent in Taft v. [read post]
8 Nov 2006, 9:37 am
Carhart (05-380) and Gonzales v. [read post]
7 Nov 2006, 9:19 am
It should have been evident to state courts that, when Blakely emerged, it was simply an application of Apprendi's core holding, he contended. [read post]
