Search for: "In re: Justice v." Results 1761 - 1780 of 18,398
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2009, 1:30 pm
It's so popular there that SCOTUS brought it back for a second showing, ordering a re-argument in the campaign finance case Citizens United v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 12:04 pm
 And yet, a century later, we're still debating what the terms mean.Ultimately, Justice Kruger says that an open pocketknife isn't "locked" when its simply held open by regular force that can be overcome merely by pushing the blade. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 12:16 pm
  It's a classic and oft-repeated problem that's not unique to this particular dispute.But Justice Yegan rightly notes that we're typically talking about tiny restitution orders here. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 12:11 pm by Ashby Jones
But we're going to force-feed you a bit more, like it or not. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 1:07 pm
The case is In re Center for Medical Progress v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 9:01 am
The Justices scheduled Kennedy v. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 8:48 am by MBettman
Juvenile adjudications will never have long term consequences provided that the juvenile does not re-offend. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 11:02 pm by Samuel Bray
If there is no answer to that question (and there isn't), we're clearly not dealing with a traditional remedy. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 12:26 pm by Julie Lam
  Justice Marilyn Kelly would deny leave to appeal in Burris. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 6:42 am by INFORRM
The Court of Appeal’s guidance given in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42 in respect of anonymity orders was held to apply equally to orders applied for under section 39. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 4:44 pm
  Just like you could call Justice Scalia a "judge" (since he is one), but might want to use the term "justice" instead. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar and Michael Schaps
By now most Verdict readers have probably heard about Justice Scalia’s provocative comments at last week’s oral argument in Fisher v. [read post]