Search for: "STANFORD v. STATE"
Results 1801 - 1820
of 2,042
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Oct 2021, 8:21 am
Professor of Law & Director of Clinical Legal Education, UC Davis School of Law--Robert Cover as Critical Race Theorist Mark Graber, University System of Maryland Regents Professor, University of Maryland Carey School of Law & Sandford V. [read post]
20 May 2022, 1:56 pm
For example, my amicus brief in Espinoza v. [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 12:34 pm
EFF, together with Daphne Keller at the Stanford Cyber Law Center, as well as lawyers from Davis Wright Tremaine and Walters Law Group, represent the plaintiffs. [read post]
11 May 2015, 2:18 pm
” With few exceptions, the first 200-odd years of Privacy in the Unites States primarily concerned contexts where the identifiable nature of the data in question was not seriously in doubt. [read post]
17 Dec 2022, 4:40 am
While the decision of Morgan v. [read post]
19 Nov 2018, 10:53 am
United States, Pam Karlan in Lozman v. [read post]
9 Jun 2024, 12:19 pm
Eliseo v. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 10:16 pm
V. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:18 am
” Davidoff noted that the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision did not state that it was applicable to stock corporations, but it did state that whether or not a fee-shifting by law is enforceable “depends on the manner in which it was adopted and the circumstances in which it was invoked. [read post]
9 Dec 2018, 9:35 pm
Supreme Court this term, Gundy v. [read post]
23 Oct 2022, 8:56 am
The complaint in Schmitt v. [read post]
14 Sep 2021, 7:37 am
As Justice Kavanaugh explained in his powerful concurring opinion in NCAA v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:32 am
Meanwhile, Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chair - Warren Buffett's partner - has weighed in on the state of corporate governance in this Stanford article [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 8:21 am
Secretary of State John Kerry. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 9:02 pm
In United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 4:00 pm
Ct. 1017 (2013), allowing a father’s appeal of an international family law ruling against him to continue even though the child was no longer in the United States. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 11:47 am
Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. [read post]
21 May 2015, 6:30 am
The Supreme Court just decided a case called Young v. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 5:29 pm
”[1] Which pretty succinctly states the main point of this entire series of blog posts: that human agency matters. [read post]
13 May 2012, 4:46 pm
But even if it's just treated as symbolic expression, it is still constitutionally protected, as cases such as Texas v. [read post]
