Search for: "Turner v. Rogers" Results 101 - 120 of 180
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2011, 9:20 am by Richard Zorza
Thank you to all who posted for a spectacularly worthwhile and open conversation about Turner v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 8:46 am by Nabiha Syed
Concurring Opinions continues its symposium on Turner v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 6:03 am by SHG
The Supreme Court's decision in Turner v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 4:07 pm by Jeanne Charn
Turner adds to the urgency for such data and research. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 12:03 pm by Jo-Ann Wallace
  Turner clearly provides an opportunity in such states to make significant advancement. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 11:58 am by Tina Rasnow
That being said, the divergence between what should happen, and what actually happens in many court proceedings makes the issues of due process and fundamental fairness raised in the Turner case quite real. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:38 am by James Bickford
” Continuing the ongoing discussion at Concurring Opinions of the Court’s decision in Turner v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 5:57 am by Walter Olson
“Electronic Arts Has Right to Refer to John Dillinger in Its Video Games” [Volokh] Fans of “Civil Gideon” (constitutional entitlement to publicly funded lawyers in civil cases) glum that SCOTUS didn’t give idea much of a boost in Turner v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 8:43 am by Kiera Flynn
Dukes, the gender-discrimination class action case, and Turner v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 12:26 pm
The ABA Journal reports of the US Supreme Court case of Turner v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 12:01 am by John Steele
The Symposium at Concurring Opinion has generated several interesting takes on the case. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 5:45 pm by Bruce Green
As a professional responsibility professor, what I found surprising in the Court’s Turner decision was the view that assigning a lawyer to the defendant who faces imprisonment for nonpayment of child support “could make the proceedings less fair overall” by “increasing the risk of a decision that would erroneously deprive a family of the support it is entitled to receive. [read post]