Search for: "State v. Downes" Results 1621 - 1640 of 36,909
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2008, 12:50 pm
Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. [read post]
26 Apr 2006, 10:34 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday handed down decisions in two cases, including Jones v. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 12:05 am by Paul Caron
United States Arizona State Responds To... [read post]
5 Mar 2007, 2:49 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in two cases Monday, including Lance v. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 2:20 pm by Alex Vitrak
Hans von Spakovsky, in his recent article in the National Review, “Strike Down Section 5,” gets it wrong when he says the Supreme Court should hold Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional in the case now pending before it, Shelby County, Alabama v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 9:03 am by Atty. Gregory A. Holbus
About 2-1/2 months after hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court of the United States today rendered its decision in the case of Hamilton v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:27 pm by Adam White
Circuit invoked Brown & Williamson’s “major questions” doctrine to strike down the EPA’s cross-state air pollution rule (a decision eventually reversed by the Supreme Court). [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:10 am by Eleanor Mitchell, Matrix
The Supreme Court will spend the first half of this week hearing the appeals in three related cases: R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, R (A), and R (Rutherford). [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 3:05 am by NCC Staff
Mitchell, handed down a decision that only complicated matters. [read post]
31 May 2011, 10:29 am
 We are not aware of any businesses to date that have been fined or shut down in Arizona as a result of the state statute. [read post]
29 Jul 2009, 10:01 pm
 Although some of these concepts are being popularized by books like Predictably Irrational, the knowledge hasn't trickled down to the Main Street juror.Why shouldn't lawyers be allowed to educate jurors about the faults of eyewitness identification? [read post]