Search for: "Johns v State" Results 8841 - 8860 of 22,293
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jul 2015, 8:24 pm
Texas and the Emergence of Mexican American Lawyering (Publico Press in 2006); Education Law Stories (Foundation Press, 2007); No Undocumented Child Left Behind (NYU Press, 2012); and Suing Alma Mater: Higher Education and the Courts (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013). [3] See Obergefell v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote the main Pollock dissent. [read post]
11 Jul 2019, 9:05 pm by Gordon D. Todd
Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer, is the most straightforward, in that it relied principally on PG&E v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 1:30 pm
  The decision in Reidel v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 11:25 am
Here is the abstract: Historical accounts of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment generally assume that John Bingham based the text on Article IV of the original Constitution and that Bingham, like other Reconstruction Republicans, viewed Justice Washington's opinion in Corfield v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 8:10 am
The Court heard oral argument yesterday in Hertz Corporation v. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 12:11 am
John Smith NASSAU COUNTYCriminal PracticeDefendant Granted Trial Order of Dismissal; Prosecutor's Information Fails to Name 'Victim' People v. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 7:15 am by Eugene Volokh
(Here is the latest edition of the Institute for Justice’s weekly Short Circuit newsletter, written by John Ross.) [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 6:22 am
That's the title of John Schwartz' front page report in today's New York Times. [read post]
26 Dec 2010, 7:22 am by Gritsforbreakfast
In situations where the supervisor decided in favor of the examiner who thought a match was found, the disagreement was not being reported even to prosecutors, much less to the defense, in the crime labs' final reports.I'd noted before that the failure to be forthcoming about in-lab disagreements among examiners violates the state's obligation under Brady v. [read post]