Search for: "Majors v. Smith"
Results 141 - 160
of 3,062
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Aug 2022, 3:59 pm
Smith v. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 3:41 pm
It's a case in which the majority opinion arguably conflicts with a prior en banc decision. [read post]
27 May 2023, 12:23 pm
Optis v. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 2:15 pm
Which is not just a "Smith v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 11:05 am
In Smith v. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 7:39 am
Today the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 7:09 am
The 5-4 decision came in the case of Smith v. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 11:58 am
Judge Paez authors the majority opinion. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 11:01 am
Judge Smith's dissent also maintains that the majority is substituting its own value judgments for law. [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 3:00 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. [read post]
16 Feb 2021, 9:01 pm
Writing for the majority in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 10:55 am
Supreme Court issued its decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 12:15 pm
Judge Newman dissented from the majority’s “endorsement of the status quo. [read post]
11 Jan 2018, 9:39 am
Although there was no unified majority opinion in Agre v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:37 am
Earlier this month, in Smith v. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 3:44 am
In the case of Jones-Smith v. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 10:33 am
Westlaw gets some free advertising in both the majority and concurring opinions here. [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 6:24 pm
Make even harder by the fact that both the majority opinion (written by Judge Friedman, sitting by designation from the Federal Circuit, and joined by Judge Randy Smith) and the dissent (authored by Judge Betty Fletcher) make some pretty darn good points.On the one hand, I'm somewhat appalled that an attorney -- especially a potentially not-very-good one -- can take a hefty amount of attorney's fees from a client in a totally simple case. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 11:01 am
In my view, this case is yet another candidate for reversal because the majority flouts clear Supreme Court AEDPA precedent in order to justify its holding that a state court’s decision is incorrect. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 3:04 pm
By Daniel RichardsonZorn v. [read post]
