Search for: "State v. Minor" Results 9381 - 9400 of 16,410
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Oct 2013, 6:45 pm by Ilya Somin
Stephen Breyer, who voted to strike down an affirmative action plan in Gratz v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 1:22 pm by Lyle Denniston
As the Court heard the case of Schuette v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 5:32 am by Amy Howe
”  Commentary on Schuette comes from Richard Kahlenberg, who in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal argues that “[a] ruling in Schuette that promotes race-neutral strategies to boost minority admissions would reinforce the message the court tried to deliver last term in Fisher v. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 7:31 am by Joy Waltemath
” A few hours later he emailed in reference to a particular applicant, stating he was “pretty sure this guy is black. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 3:32 am by Peter Mahler
Two years ago, I blogged about a decision in a case called Stulman v. [read post]
13 Oct 2013, 8:45 am by Ilya Somin
For example, he opposes programs where minority students are admitted with academic qualifications so low relative to others at the same institution that they cannot effectively handle the work. [read post]
12 Oct 2013, 10:34 am by Joey Fishkin
 Judge Posner, who is out promoting his 40th book, reflected in the interview [see around 8:45-10:45] on his opinion in Crawford v. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 9:06 pm by Lyle Denniston
  Arguing for the state of Michigan in Schuette v. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 11:07 pm by Will Baude
(Will Baude) On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Atlantic Marine v. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 8:29 am by Ronald Mann
On Wednesday morning, the Justices started with what might seem to be a minor tax case, United States v. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 6:16 am by Joy Waltemath
Five months before the instant action was filed, the deceased employee’s closest family member had been appointed as her minor child’s conservator and guardian. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 2:52 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Moore states,In this case, we hold that the applicant’s use of the term ‘‘majority’’ is not entitled to a scope of equivalents covering a minority for at least two reasons. [read post]