Search for: "v. Arpaio" Results 101 - 120 of 146
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2012, 10:51 am
  Especially given qualified immunity.The only thing I can gather from the majority opinion is that the court -- like the Ninth Circuit -- wasn't all that thrilled with Joe Arpaio's policy of dressing inmates in pink (including pink underwear). [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 11:17 am by jleaming@acslaw.org
In an ACS Issue Brief, Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a Santa Clara University law school professor, explains why the Supreme Court’s narrow opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 1:54 am by davidmginsberg
Recent Protest(s) in China is(are) not the Same as Arab Spring Protests and Should Be Left to the Central Chinese Government to Handle. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 5:51 pm by lawmrh
Justice Thomas famously dissented in the excessive punishment prison inmate case of Hudson v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 5:14 am by Walter Olson
[Federalist Society] “I dreamed I swayed the jury… in my Maidenform bra” [Retronaut, scroll] Tags: Arizona, BlackBerry, hate speech, pharmaceuticals, September 11 Related posts October 17 roundup (7) Wyeth v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 3:29 pm by azatty
Here is the minute entry in Phoenix Newspapers Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 6:58 am by Sheldon Toplitt
Image by Getty Images via @daylifeIn Michael Lacey, Jim Larkin & Phoenix New Times LLC v. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 12:39 pm
In the words of Arpaio’s own director of legal affairs, Arpaio had targeted the Phoenix New Times because the paper had been 'historically anti-Arpaio.' Arpaio’s excuse for demanding prosecution of the Phoenix New Times was that its decision to post Arpaio’s home address on its website allegedly violated an obscure Arizona statute that prohibits dissemination of a law enforcement officer’s 'personal… [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 10:46 am by Rick
On the one hand, we’ve got Crazy Joe Arpaio rolling around town in a tank with Steven Seagull crushing chickens. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 3:54 am by SHG
  This was the rule since Marbury v. [read post]