Search for: "Smith v. State" Results 1181 - 1200 of 11,004
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Sep 2011, 9:14 am by Jon Sands
O'Scannlain worries that a state could not appeal an erroneous order that stops short of ordering release.U.S. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm by Leslie C. Griffin
Post-Smith, moreover, Congress and many state legislatures granted legislative exemptions to religions through their federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs).It was the federal RFRA, not the Free Exercise Clause, that granted employers the right to refuse contraceptive insurance to their employees in Burwell v. [read post]
16 Feb 2023, 8:55 am by Lawrence Solum
  Here is the abstract: In the 1987 decision, McCleskey v. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 9:15 am by Matthew Schutte
The U.S. government sought certiorari to challenge the remand, and after its decision in United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 3:59 pm by Danielle Wild
  Failure to do so is unconstitutional and requires reversal of the conviction (id.).Five days ago, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that the rule of law announced in Catu applies retroactively to pre-Catu convictions (People v Smith, __ NYS3d __, 2015 NY Slip Op 07565 [Oct. 15, 2015]). [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 2:45 pm by Priscilla Smith
S 2000bb(b) (1).[3] Smith, 494 U.S. at 887 (equating evaluation of centrality with, inter alia, substantiality) (citing United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 6:10 am by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
“of late, an important shift has occurred in the views of state and lower federal courts, which have increasingly found fault with “new-generation” SORN laws, which in many respects are more expansive and onerous than those condoned by the” Supreme Court in Smith v. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 7:38 am by CMS
In this post, Pippa Borton, Associate at CMS, previews the decision awaited from the Supreme Court in Kireeva v Bedzhamov. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 5:09 am
United States:For reasons well stated by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion in Smith, 508 U. [read post]