Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Kennedy"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 3,161
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2016, 7:32 am
Central Park: Ward v. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 12:10 pm
Intermediate v. strict scrutiny standard: but that’s one of the principal disputes right now. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 6:53 am
Kent v. [read post]
23 Apr 2016, 4:38 am
” Justice Anthony Kennedy asks. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 12:51 pm
CJLF filed an amicus brief in one of the North Dakota cases, Beylund v. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 6:55 pm
” This theory apparently appealed to Kennedy as well. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 8:56 am
Yesterday’s opinion in Welch v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:01 pm
” [Abrams v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 5:37 pm
Luis V. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 11:17 am
That, at least, seemed likely after a ninety-minute argument on Monday in United States v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 2:02 pm
(Citizens United itself overruled a 20-year old precedent, Austin v. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 11:08 am
Earlier this week, in Evenwel v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 10:16 am
Kennedy — might have abandoned the common result. [read post]
2 Apr 2016, 12:20 pm
The touchstone became economic evidence (see Lucent v Gateway, ResQnet v Lansa, Uniloc v Microsoft). [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 2:33 pm
The government faced an uphill battle in Wednesday’s argument in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 7:28 am
But at yesterday’s argument in Welch v. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 9:02 pm
In particular, the legislature was clearly reacting to an ordinance enacted in February by the city of Charlotte, which added “lesbian, gay and transgender” to the list of protected traits for antidiscrimination purposes and provided that transgender people can use public restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 9:37 am
InRomer v. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 12:23 pm
Eventually, Justice Kennedy asked Verrilli bluntly if he was conceding the religious exercise/substantial burden part of the case. 45:10ff. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 6:21 am
Roy and Lyng v. [read post]