Search for: "In re: Justice v."
Results 1241 - 1260
of 18,395
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2015, 2:35 pm
Hear, hear.The next paragraph of Justice Gilbert's opinion reads:"In Green v. [read post]
5 Oct 2019, 1:01 pm
So when the justices granted Kahler v. [read post]
11 Apr 2009, 7:47 am
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. [read post]
7 May 2022, 3:51 am
In Cox v. [read post]
27 Jun 2024, 11:52 am
In a prior post, I have analyzed the justices’ treatment of the questions presented in the petition in Smith v. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 1:14 pm
Justice Cody? [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 11:08 am
Even if you're going to lose. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 12:00 pm
If you're not going to bind absent class members to a loss, then don't certify.)Justice! [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 6:59 am
Blog contributor Lauren Weldon and a few friends attended a Federalist Society debate titled, "Can Originalists Defend Brown v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 5:00 am
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 3, 2010 in Kwikset Corp. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 12:25 pm
Collins, “I Will Not Pronounce You Husband and Husband”: Justice and the Justice of the Peace, 61 Ala. [read post]
19 May 2009, 9:29 am
They're not frivolous. [read post]
15 Oct 2011, 10:28 am
In 1994, in a decision called Hope v. [read post]
13 Oct 2009, 10:27 am
You can see how it ties back into Salazar v. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 7:38 am
In this post, Pippa Borton, Associate at CMS, previews the decision awaited from the Supreme Court in Kireeva v Bedzhamov. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 7:07 pm
The Court declined to exercise superintending control in Brady v. [read post]
29 Aug 2009, 4:03 pm
Schools v. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 3:25 am
In the words of Thorpe LJ in Williams v. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 4:16 am
Richard Re previewed the case for this blog. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 6:06 am
Briefly: At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses Tuesday’s comments by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggesting that the Court might decline to grant any of the pending petitions challenging state bans on same-sex marriage because there is currently no division among the circuits. [read post]
