Search for: "People v Jesus" Results 101 - 120 of 497
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2019, 4:35 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Turtle (Lacey Act; Endangered Species)State Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2019.htmlInterest of D.E.D.I  (Indian Child Welfare Act – Expert Witnesses) Tribal Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2019.html Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 6:12 pm
  This means that people who are religiously obligated to pray to Jesus or Allah are simply out. [read post]
11 Aug 2013, 10:34 pm by Eugene Volokh
My sense is that the many people named Jesus have relatively little social problems as a result, and while there is safety in numbers, Jesus was the 101st most popular name for infant boys in America in 2012, while Messiah rose to #387 — a nontrivial difference, but not so vast as to suggest that Messiahs will suffer badly. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 1:34 pm
In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case Marbury v. [read post]
25 Jun 2007, 7:33 am
Fredricks (Bong Hits 4 Jesus)- 5-4 (6-3?) [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 6:02 am by Susan Brenner
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, supra. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 10:13 am by Elie Mystal
Wait a minute, 79% of black people generally, and 70% of people over 50, couldn’t come up with Brown v. [read post]
10 Jul 2007, 7:05 am
Supreme Court's analysis in Morse v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 5:00 pm
            That’s sort of like Jesus turning on the 12 Apostles and telling them all to go to Hell. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
When separation fails, people are actually harmed, the government tells us. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 1:13 pm by Robert George
Its roots are in the Supreme Court's 1943 decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 5:00 am by Howard Friedman
Rothera, The Tenacious "Twin Relic": Republicans, Polygamy, and The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. [read post]