Search for: "COX V STATE" Results 61 - 80 of 1,202
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jan 2023, 5:53 am by Eugene R. Fidell
Code that deny military personnel convicted at courts-martial the same access to the Supreme Court as other federal, state, and military commission defendants enjoy. [read post]
30 Dec 2022, 10:32 am by Michael Oykhman
Cases such as R v Nygaard, 1989 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 1074, R v Jacquard, 1997 CanLII 374 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 314, and R v More, 1963 CanLII 805 (MBCA) have helped us establish notions of what “planned and deliberate” murder entails. [read post]
17 Nov 2022, 4:00 am by Guest Author
EPA and more in the concerns animating Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 12:45 pm by Unknown
"A Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study on Sexual and Reproductive Health Knowledge and Access to Services of Arab and Kurdish Syrian Refugee Young Women Living in an Urban Setting in Lebanon," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 18 (Sept. 2021) [open access] - Authors (3) = Germany Dobbs v. [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 9:22 am by Eric Goldman
Most judges understand this distinction intuitively because they learned as 1Ls that the Constitution only restricts state action, not private action. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 5:39 am by Jack Goldsmith
[Jack Goldsmith and I will have an article out about the Dormant Commerce Clause, geolocation, and state regulations of Internet transactions in the Texas Law Review early next year, and I'm serializing it here. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:01 am by Shalini Bhargava Ray
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit expressed skepticism about the states’ standing to bring suit, the reviewability of the Mayorkas memorandum under the APA, and the merits of the states’ substantive claims. [read post]
24 Jul 2022, 12:05 am by Frank Cranmer
In London Historic Parks And Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing & Anor [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin), Thornton J held that the grant of planning permission had been ultra vires the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 and refused permission to appeal. [read post]