Search for: "Justice v. Stevens et al"
Results 141 - 160
of 348
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2007, 8:03 am
Souter would have denied review, and Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined only in the result, arguing that the officers had qualified immunity and thus the Court should not have decided the constitutional question. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 6:13 am
Stevens, Salazar v. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 3:28 pm
Gant (No. 07-542)(PDF), Justice Stevens2 has all but overruled Belton. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 9:00 am
Steven Hersh, et al., No. 11 L 1112 (Cook County, Illinois). [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 8:45 am
Trump, et al. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 2:59 pm
Salus Rehabilitation, LLC et al. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 6:43 pm
The case is Mayo Collaborative Services, et al., v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 7:16 am
Bailey, et al. (08-295). [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 4:05 pm
The new case is McCreary County, et al., v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 2:43 pm
” The case is Morrison, et al., v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 9:00 pm
Roe survived after Justice Kennedy joined Justices O’Connor, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter in keeping Roe alive, but modified, in Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 7:31 am
Justice Stevens had no such illusions seven years ago in McConnell. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 2:21 pm
Retirement Plan, et al., v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 7:40 am
[Disclosure: Howe & Russell represented respondents Irvin Muchnick et al. in the case.] [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 8:18 am
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company et al. as an amicus in support of the petitioner in Federal Trade Commission v. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 5:44 am
• In Ex Parte Kinzhalin et al. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
See The Fredericksburg Care Company L.P. v Juanita Perez et al. [read post]
29 Nov 2006, 8:34 am
In the argument in Massachusetts, et al., v. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 5:35 am
NFL, et al (08-661) case (argument date unscheduled), which will test whether the National Football League's exclusive apparel licensing deal with Reebok violates antitrust rules. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 4:30 am
There must not have been much lounging in a faculty lounge with Scalia, Posner, Epstein, Easterbrook, Sunstein, Stone, et al. [read post]
