Search for: "Atkins v. United States" Results 121 - 140 of 287
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Cain 13-1433Issue: (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner's penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner's claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 3:17 pm by Tim Clancy
The appeals court made their decision to follow the holding of Atkins v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 4:28 am by Amy Howe
At more than twenty cents, Andrew Suszek criticizes what he describes as the “strong trend among journalists and judges alike in using the” Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:26 am by Amy Howe
District Judge Vaughn Walker striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, noting that although the Supreme Court later “chose to speak on gay marriage through a narrower case, ruling only that the federal government must recognize marriages solemnized under state law,” since then the lower courts “have been reading the [United States v.] [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
For example, under the doctrine set forth in the 1979 case of United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2014, 6:55 am by Yishai Schwartz
And Wells linked to a District Court ruling in United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 7:17 am by Ron Coleman
True enough, when we got the judgment for seven (theoretical) figures in Louis Vuitton v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 6:31 am by John Elwood
United States, and perhaps implicating the twice-relisted Woodward v. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 8:05 pm by Ron Coleman
 ”Because the University of Alabama is a state entity, it cannot be joined in a case in federal court. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 10:15 am by Ernster the Virtual Library Cat
United States, the Court “will rule on an issue regarding restitution as a penalty for bank loan fraud”. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 9:53 am by John Elwood
Sims 12-1217Issue: (1) Whether the “hot pursuit” doctrine articulated in United States v. [read post]