Search for: "Powers v. Arizona Department of Corrections"
Results 61 - 80
of 138
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Aug 2018, 6:46 am
JDB v. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 10:46 am
Mendez in U.S. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 10:46 am
Mendez in U.S. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm
In Janus, Justice Kagan’s dissent for herself and three others, quoting from the 1984 Arizona v. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 6:56 am
JDB v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 10:30 am
Not surprisingly, there are already a slew of reactions to the Court's landmark decision on Friday in Carpenter v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 4:48 pm
" Arizona v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 10:26 pm
In 2015, Arizona Sens. [read post]
6 May 2018, 8:35 pm
The case, Trump v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 7:06 am
The court denied the Justice Department’s petition for certiorari before judgment in Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
17 Dec 2017, 3:28 pm
Madden v Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136, S. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 4:07 am
Arizona, a challenge to Arizona’s death-penalty scheme, contending that “[w]hile the argument in the Hidalgo petition is superficially appealing, it involves a basic mistake. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 4:03 pm
In a recent case between Glassdoor, an online job-review website, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) an Arizona Judge has ruled that the DOJ can compel a private company to give up someone’s private information because they expressed an opinion online. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 8:14 am
In its 1968 decision in Zschernig v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 4:05 am
Now maybe we say politically correct or not politically correct. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:16 am
Judge Beam dissented in part: A correct evaluation of the record, in my view, compels a finding that the department’s actions would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected political speech. [read post]
19 May 2016, 9:01 pm
House of Representatives v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 9:19 am
Meanwhile, County of Maricopa, Arizona v. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 11:46 am
As the Supreme Court recently recognized in Arizona v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 3:07 am
Justice Platkin began his legal analysis with a quote from the First Department’s 2012 ruling in the AriZona Iced Tea dissolution case, where that court wrote, The buyout election accommodates the interests of the respective parties in ensuring the continued functioning of the business, while also protecting the financial interest of the shareholders and creditors. [read post]
