Search for: "Howard v. District of Columbia" Results 121 - 140 of 187
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm by Eugene Volokh
The Supreme Court concluded in District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570 (2008), that “arms” refers to “weapons of offence, or armour of defence,” or “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another,” id at 647 (quotation marks and citations omitted)—terms that cover more than just guns. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 6:00 am by Jane Turner
LaShawn A. is a federal class-action suit filed in 1989 on behalf of the District of Columbia’s abused and neglected children. [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 12:42 pm by Norman L. Eisen
District Court for the District of Columbia for “a necessary second level of judicial permission to begin combing through the records. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 9:30 pm by David B. Kopel
For this reason, handguns are the most preferred guns for lawful defense—as Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in District of Columbia v. [read post]
District Court for the District of Columbia that seeks to rectify this problem. [read post]
31 Dec 2020, 6:29 pm by James Romoser
She was the first female law professor to receive tenure at Columbia University. [read post]
23 Feb 2021, 7:05 am by WNN
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he participated in two key whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 5:24 pm by Kirk Jenkins
  In response to the problem, the Supreme Court adopted a rule first applied by then-Judge William Howard Taft in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 5:24 pm by Kirk Jenkins
  In response to the problem, the Supreme Court adopted a rule first applied by then-Judge William Howard Taft in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 5:24 pm by Kirk Jenkins
  In response to the problem, the Supreme Court adopted a rule first applied by then-Judge William Howard Taft in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. [read post]