Search for: "Black v. State Bar"
Results 141 - 160
of 2,105
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2023, 1:42 pm
Indian law section: Q & A with Washington State Bar section chair Bree Black Horse. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 6:12 am
Anthony List v. [read post]
16 Jul 2023, 8:34 pm
Supreme Court opinion in Oklahoma v. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 10:32 am
The panel ordered the state to draw a new map. [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 8:00 am
" This provision was, of course, enacted in response to the notorious passages in the 1857 Dred Scott ruling, which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 7:45 am
As stated, the rules require one intending to apply for asylum to first obtain an appointment. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 4:00 am
But two things are clear: 1) the Court's explicit approval of Bush v. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 5:01 am
In the 2003 decision in Grutter v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 3:28 pm
(I covered one of those cases, United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 8:20 am
In Hurley v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 3:03 am
When the Court affirmed this in the 5-4 decision of Grutter v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 9:15 pm
Lightfoot, where the Supreme Court held that the 15th Amendment barred redrawing the Tuskegee, Alabama, electoral map in a manner that was not explicitly designed to exclude Black voters, but had the effect of doing so. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 1:34 pm
One of my black classmates at Yale Law School was the son of the attorney general of his state. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 9:31 am
The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 3:52 am
The seminal decision, Petruis v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 9:06 am
In Moore v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 6:56 am
Covington Specialty Insurance Company v. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 12:06 pm
It does not bar "a civil action . . . brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am
"[16] But Claiborne Hardware had no occasion to decide whether a person's not dealing with someone based on that someone's race was itself protected by the First Amendment, because it was clear that Mississippi law did not prohibit such private choices not to deal.[17] Under Mississippi law, whites could generally refuse to deal with blacks, and blacks could refuse to deal with whites. [read post]
24 Jun 2023, 7:43 am
” Lulay v. [read post]
