Search for: "State v. Texas City" Results 1301 - 1320 of 2,877
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2008, 2:33 pm
Texas and a decision of its own highest criminal court, now dating back two decades, that the state's sodomy law cannot be used to prosecute private consensual heterosexual sodomy). [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 6:05 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
The Court also heard oral arguments yesterday in United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 4:30 am by Josh Blackman
The Court Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General in Texas v. [read post]
12 Sep 2018, 8:25 am by Manny Marotta
Attorneys for Planned Parenthood had argued that Missouri’s laws were “virtually identical” [Kansas City Star report] to the Texas law declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2016 in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 11:24 am by Rick Esenberg
Rick Esenberg is the founder, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in support of the state appellants in Gill v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 9:39 am by John Elwood
”  The Tarrant Regional Water District, which includes the Texas cities of Fort Worth and Arlington, sued Oklahoma, alleging that that state prohibited transferring Red River water to out-of-state applicants in violation of the Commerce Clause. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 10:47 am by Andrew Hamm
Texas, not the later marriage cases United States v. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 9:23 am by Walter Olson
@AdamBonin Pleasant Grove City v Summum: Put up your wacky religious monument in your own damn park, freaks. [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 11:47 am by Sherry F. Colb
Remember learning at oral argument in Dobbs v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 4:45 am by Amy Howe
  In City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 4:08 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly: At The Texas Tribune, Alexa Ura reports that the city of Houston has asked the Supreme Court to review a decision of the Texas Supreme Court “thr[o]w[ing] out a lower court ruling that said spouses of gay and lesbian public employees are entitled to government-subsidized marriage benefits and unanimously order[ing] a trial court to reconsider the case. [read post]