Search for: "Baker v. Young" Results 81 - 100 of 274
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2018, 8:15 am by Vanessa Sauter
Kahn posted the Supreme Court ruling in Jesner v. [read post]
21 Apr 2018, 6:04 am by William Ford
Corker, Kaine, Flake, Coons, Young, and Nelson introduced. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
Indeed, not dissimilar to Lord Mance’s emphasis on the Claimant’s family life in the Supreme Court case of PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd in the context of privacy claims, the judgment in AXB v BXA serves to illustrate that the Court will continue to place great emphasis when the Claimant’s family members, in particular spouses and young children, are also plainly adversely affected by both the Defendant’s course of conduct and the publicity that… [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 4:19 am by SHG
” The ACLU is arguing that Bostic’s sentence violates Graham v. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 3:53 am by Edith Roberts
At In These Times, Shaun Richman weighs in on Janus v. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 4:23 am by Edith Roberts
The first was Murphy v. [read post]
19 Nov 2017, 10:18 am by Garrett Hinck
And Orin Kerr discussed four considerations to supplement his amicus brief in Carpenter v. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Merit Management Group v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 4:05 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: Counting to 5 (podcast) features a discussion with an attorney for the employees in Ernst & Young LLP v. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 4:14 am by Edith Roberts
” At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 3:27 pm by Eric Rassbach and Hannah Smith
It follows then that just as a state could not forbid bakers from baking cakes to celebrate same-sex wedding ceremonies, a state cannot force a baker to bake a cake in order to celebrate one. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 9:11 am by Ron Coleman
Baker, suggesting that a certain set of studies is not worthy of consideration because it was “litigant-funded. [read post]