Search for: "Free v. State"
Results 1721 - 1740
of 35,654
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2012, 8:30 am
In Coneff v. [read post]
14 Dec 2023, 4:39 am
" Excerpt:The "free lunch" refers to the once-common tradition of saloons in the United States providing a "free" lunch to patrons who had purchased at least one drink. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 1:59 pm
The Porter decision was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and, in my view, represents a major threat to both free speech and academic freedom. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 8:20 am
Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined (Iancu v. [read post]
26 Aug 2016, 11:17 am
In a recent decision that affects judicial elections in Kentucky and throughout the Sixth Circuit (Winter v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 12:44 pm
In 2017, in Matal v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 9:53 am
In Blaustein v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 8:45 am
(Eugene Volokh) The Court just handed down its decision in Holder v. [read post]
9 Jul 2019, 2:00 am
None is more important than free and fair elections. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 7:19 am
United States (W.D. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 7:15 pm
In Holder v. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 8:39 am
Sultanis v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:52 pm
Flood v. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 12:36 am
In Jones v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 3:15 am
Holder v. [read post]
8 Nov 2021, 5:03 am
In other words, if antitrust is indeed the “magna carta” of American free enterprise (see United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2008, 2:54 pm
In McGlade v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 10:42 am
Case citation: Parler, LLC v. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 11:02 am
The public defender for a Minnesota prison inmate told the Supreme Court on Thursday that judges in "no fewer than 15 states" have reached conflicting conclusions about whether state courts are free under state law to make retroactive criminal law decisions by the Supreme Court, that the Court has held are not retroactive in federal cases. [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 10:23 am
’ Commonwealth v. [read post]