Search for: "Baker v. State" Results 781 - 800 of 3,473
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 May 2013, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
(Hat tip: H-Law) Marc Lender discusses his book on Gitlow v. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 3:08 pm by Marty Lederman
  The oral argument thus renewed the mystery of why the Court granted certiorari in the first place--especially after it had denied the petition in Elane Photography, LLC v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:22 am by Frank Pasquale
(Review of Ian Bremmer, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 2:45 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Nouri & Anor, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 1379 (27 June 2012) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) R & Ors (Minors), R (on the application of) v The Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service [2012] EWCA Civ 853 (29 June 2012) Loader, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 869 (29 June 2012) High Court (Chancery Division) Gaydamak v Leviev… [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 11:29 am by Eugene Volokh
So the Washington state Supreme Court unanimously held this morning, in State v. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 12:20 am by INFORRM
A cause of action is “a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person” (Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, 242-243 (Diplock LJ); Roberts v Gill [2011] 1 AC 240, [2010] UKSC 22 (19 May 2010) [41] (Lord Collins); Murphy v O’Toole [2014] IEHC 486 (17 October 2014) [57]-[58] (Baker J); see also PR v KC [2014] IEHC 126 (11 March 2014) [36] (Baker J), but note… [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 11:31 pm by Blog Editorial
R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal; Eba v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); and R (MR (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 14 – 17 March 2011. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 4:17 am by Edith Roberts
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which asks whether the First Amendment prevents a state from requiring a baker to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, maintaining that “it would be a fundamental mistake for the court to hold that the baker’s artistry exempts them from anti-discrimination law. [read post]