Search for: "State v. Austin" Results 821 - 840 of 2,703
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Apr 2012, 2:36 pm by Cynthia L. Hackerott
California’s affirmative action ban, added to the state constitution when voters passed Proposition 209 in November 1996, did not violate the US Constitution, the Ninth Circuit held on Monday (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v Brown, April 2, 2012). [read post]
14 Aug 2007, 7:39 am
I'm back in Austin following the ABA Annual Meeting. [read post]
18 May 2012, 11:43 am by Marcia Coyle
The case was closely watched by states, civil rights groups and others because it was filed shortly after the Supreme Court raised doubts about Section 5’s constitutionality in its 2009 ruling in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 4:15 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Network, LLC v Sidley Austin LLP, 43 Misc 3d 848, 864-65 (Sup Ct, NY County 2014) (internal citations omitted) citing Schertenleib v Traum, 589 F2d 1156, 1166 (2d Cir 1978); Weksler v. [read post]
21 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
If the battle to root out racial prejudice in capital cases is ever to be won, it will require that we not turn a blind eye to cases like Warren King’s.That case also offers the Court a chance to send a clear message about the seriousness with which it takes violations of its 1986 Batson v. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 6:12 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Allen Fletcher has a bill up that would permanently seal records related to orders for mobile location tracking devices, like those discussed in the SCOTUS case US v. [read post]
30 Aug 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
Morgan Kousser, and Orville Vernon Burton in Nairne v. [read post]
26 Nov 2023, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
Ron DeSantis signed into law.Amid so many missteps and missed opportunities, the worst of all was the Supreme Court’s June 29 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 8:46 am
Concluding the court wasn't ready to overturn Gregg v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 3:45 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday lawyers for both sides presented the Court with proposals to divide up the two-and-a-half hours allocated for oral argument in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. [read post]