Search for: "State v. David Harding"
Results 81 - 100
of 1,834
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
Hildebrandt (1916), Smiley v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
” It is hard to see how the ESEA would fare any better under this reasoning. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
For example, in the seminal case of United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 8:45 pm
(David Bernstein) I like and respect Yale Law professor Akhil Amar, but his op-ed on the decision invalidating the Obamacare individual mandate is not exactly his best work. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 9:01 pm
Since the Supreme Court has observed, first in the seminal case of Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 9:01 pm
The problem is, just two years ago, in Walker v. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
See Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 9:01 pm
As the Court put it four years ago in Fisher v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 9:30 am
David Cole: Thanks so much, Jameel. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 11:28 am
"Anyone would have a hard time arguing that people of Barre and the rest of the state wouldn't be better served by an expansion of sex offender registry," he said. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 3:16 am
David Paterson describes a failing system that damages young people, fails to curb recidivism and eats up millions of tax dollars. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 3:35 am
State v. [read post]
16 Mar 2024, 7:30 am
Annor v. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 12:45 pm
At today’s oral argument in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 6:09 am
United States. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 10:18 am
The much anticipated preemption case, Wyeth v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 9:01 pm
And—as I have suggested before—until a red state joins the mix, it will be “hard to debunk the fear that red state folks have that the National Popular Vote bill is a Democratic scheme rather than a democratic idea. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 6:10 am
Bush v. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 6:27 am
Well, Broadway is still dark this week, and it seems the judges of the New York Court of Appeals don't want the courts of the Empire State to do much work either -- at least not the sort of work that entails thinking hard about whether litigants who put their medical status in issue need to consent -- under HIPAA -- to informal interviews of their treating physicians by opposing counsel, conducted under New York discovery rules.A tip of the hat to Eric Turkewitz, who wrote… [read post]
14 Dec 2013, 1:35 am
(David Kopel) To me, today’s decision of the United States District Court for the District of Utah in Brown v. [read post]
