Search for: "BARNES v. TEXAS"
Results 101 - 120
of 371
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2018, 2:15 pm
At Take Care, Justin Levitt connects today’s argument to yesterday’s argument in the Texas racial-gerrymandering cases, Abbott v. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 4:12 am
Finally, in Jesner v. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 7:12 pm
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court is divided over Texas redistricting maps. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 4:27 am
Perez, two complex redistricting cases from Texas that are consolidated for an hour of argument. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 4:26 am
Perez, two consolidated challenges to Texas redistricting that will be argued tomorrow. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am
Barnes, 443 S.W.3d 87, 100 (Tex. 2014); Life Ass'n of Am. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2018, 2:52 am
Ross, “Short Circuit”, on Tennessee v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:13 am
In Jennings v. [read post]
20 Jan 2018, 4:08 am
This has been made clear in numerous Texas cases including the Texas Supreme Court in its 1985 opinion, Weitzel v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 4:18 am
” At the Santa Fe Reporter, Laura Paskus takes an in-depth look at the issues in Texas v. [read post]
13 Jan 2018, 8:46 pm
" Lynda V. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 4:28 am
Ryke Longest analyzes the argument in Texas v. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
First up is Texas v. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 8:05 am
Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004); Zeigler v. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 8:05 am
Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004); Zeigler v. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 3:58 am
” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that the court “is developing its own online system, rather than being part of PACER, which serves the other federal courts. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 3:59 am
” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Aaron Barnes urge the justices to review Berninger v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 4:21 am
Wesby; Sessions v. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 4:19 am
” At ElectionLaw@Moritz, Edward Foley discusses Gill v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 11:59 am
Facts: This case (Barnes et al v. [read post]
