Search for: "JOINES v. UNITED STATES" Results 61 - 80 of 11,233
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2024, 12:20 am by Frank Cranmer
Linden J also correctly stated that a religion or belief must meet some modest requirements to be protected under Article 9, citing Williamson and, interestingly, the Strasbourg decision in Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8 for this proposition (para 136). [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
  CITIZENS UNITED, ELANA KAGAN, AND THE QUESTION THAT HAD NO PLAUSIBLE ANSWERMost liberals and progressives view Citizens United v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 2:31 am by INFORRM
United States On 11 April 2024, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that Section 230 immunity applied to two retweets from Donald Trump and his son about a Dominion Voting employee that said he was going to make sure Trump would not win the 2020 election, Coomer v Donald J. [read post]
14 Apr 2024, 7:22 am by Mavrick Law Firm
  In this regard, precedent from the United States Supreme Court, in Ruckelhaus v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by Leslie C. Griffin
They should not expect their religion to become the law of the United States. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 6:05 am by Nicholas Noe
The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Holder v. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 1:00 am by INFORRM
The first panel, “Breakthrough Verdicts: Legal Decisions Shaping the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals,” will discuss landmark rulings and regional perspectives from Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Whether you’re here in person or participating virtually from around the country, or even overseas, I thank you for joining us. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 12:05 pm by Eugene Volokh
Against this backdrop, we should be granting Pennsylvania's petition for en banc review, supported by 17 other states and the District of Columbia as amici, or at least holding it c.a.v. pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]