Search for: "Thomas v. Lopez"
Results 61 - 80
of 237
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2023, 4:30 pm
(Justice Barrett readily cited California v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 7:38 am
In United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 6:37 am
” The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s reliance on its decision in Lopez v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 10:33 am
Lopez, 514 U.S. at 600 (Thomas, J., concurring) For those who do not know, Justice Thomas concurred with the majority in Lopez, because he disagreed with its maintenance of the "substantial effects" test. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 7:10 pm
” United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 3:49 pm
Attorney for Appellant: Thomas J. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 2:42 am
At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf dissects Justice Clarence Thomas’s statement respecting last week’s denial of a stay application in Maricopa County v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 2:48 pm
Of particular significance is Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 7:32 am
That reading of Lopez was rejected by the Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 8:00 pm
Navarro-Lopez and the Supreme Court's insistence on a categorical analysis mandates that we reach the under-inclusive result. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 8:50 pm
Hilton-Thomas, 2009 U.S. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm
” For example, Lopez and Morrison. [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 8:00 am
Lopez v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 4:09 am
” At Vox, German Lopez also discusses Thomas’ statement, explaining that the civil-forfeiture practice “has drawn a lot of criticism from criminal justice reformers in recent years. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 5:51 am
Thomas, 296 Conn. 375, 995 A.2d 65 (2010). [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 5:00 am
Dent v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 8:38 am
Gonzalez-Lopez -- Scalia finds (5-4) that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel of his choice. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 7:29 pm
Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-59. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 11:00 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 12:34 pm
Fuqua, No, 05-0303 (Tex. 2009)(Green)THOMAS GRABER AND HOPKINS & SUTTER v. [read post]
