Search for: "EVANS v. STATE" Results 1501 - 1520 of 2,593
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2013, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
  An arrest is a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes, but under a case called United States v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 10:04 am by Keith R. Fisher
That construction, the S.G. asserts, is supported by the Evans case and two other circuit court opinions: United States v. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
” In a case that came before the highest court in New York State in 1984, People v. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 8:55 am by WSLL
Pearson of Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 1:57 pm by Thomas Merrill
On Tuesday in Tarrant Regional Water District v. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 7:05 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
So the state court can interpret the Constitution differently than the federal courts might, but that incorrect interpretation may not spring the defendant to freedom.The case is Evans v. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 11:53 pm by Gretchen Goetz
By Gretchen Goetz and Helena Bottemiller By March of last year, lean finely textured beef (LFTB) had reached celebrity status under the unfavorable moniker “pink slime. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 3:55 pm by royblack
The Supreme Court again reversed the defendants’ convictions in Norris v Alabama. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Evans, the Supreme Court invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment that forbade state and local governments in that state from enacting laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination based on sexual orientation. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 7:02 am by Erin Daly
Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas), courts tend to conflate the two strands of rights. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
  This is why, for example, testing a defendant’s white powder to see whether it is cocaine invades no reasonable expectation of privacy, under United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 2:03 pm by Jason Mazzone
Evans prohibits an amendment to the California constitution to overturn a judicial ruling that the state constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry (and that resulted in same-sex marriages being performed in the state).For reasons I explained at the time, Reinhardt's approach in Perry makes little sense as an application of Romer. [read post]