Search for: "People v. Garrett"
Results 81 - 100
of 208
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2020, 4:04 am
Mazars and Trump v. [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 3:05 am
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Gamble v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 4:03 am
At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at Flowers v. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 4:32 pm
V. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 2:20 pm
After Garrett (which itself fell on the heels of Bush v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 4:32 am
City of Riviera Beach, Florida, United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 4:22 am
” Coverage of Wearry v. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 4:01 am
Next is Carpenter v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 4:16 am
At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps observes that the court’s decision in The American Legion v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 7:25 pm
Karlseng v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 3:58 am
” At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps highlights a “surprise opinion” by a court of appeals judge in the decision at issue in Mckesson v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 4:18 am
’” In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps argues that “the cases of two Arkansas inmates, Don William Davis and Bruce Earl Ward, sentenced to death by courts in that state” have raised the stakes in McWilliams v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 3:27 am
Texas in the end”; and Lisa Soronen, who at the NCSL Blog notes that the case “is about different things for different people. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 5:30 am
The first five people to stop by her office (Room 828 in the Law Library) with the correct answer will get a prize! [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 4:32 am
” At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps explains why Epic Systems v. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 4:11 am
The first was Hughes v. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:20 am
” On Friday the justices agreed to review Trump v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 4:15 am
In Gamble v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 3:42 am
Patent and Trademark Office v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 4:09 am
” At The Atlantic (via How Appealing), Garrett Epps hopes the court will summarily reverse a “rogue court [that] has had four chances to apply a foundational First Amendment precedent, and has bobbled it each time[:] That mistake, in a case called Mckesson v. [read post]
