Search for: "California v. Texas"
Results 301 - 320
of 4,044
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2018, 12:16 pm
In Williams v. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 7:59 am
The Supreme Court will hear argument Tuesday in one of the term’s biggest blockbusters: California v. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 7:30 am
Kolon, TianRui Group v. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm
Although Texas seeks to use the law and the litigation over it as a vehicle for overturning Roe v. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm
Although Texas seeks to use the law and the litigation over it as a vehicle for overturning Roe v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 9:05 am
Texas, which struck down a state sodomy law. [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 1:27 pm
The newest challenge, California v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 5:01 am
And, based on the CCA opinion in Griffith v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 8:09 am
Supreme Court in Connick v. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 9:01 pm
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 8:34 am
" In 2006, a federal judge in Morales v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 12:00 pm
Although the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Schmerber v. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court vacated the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA in 2020 when—by a 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority—it decided Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 10:25 am
For more, read: The Police And Your Phone: Invasion Of Privacy By Police; Texas Police Can Get Your Phone Records From Phone Company Without A Warrant: Ford v. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 12:32 pm
Publications International, Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 7:25 am
PartsRiver, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 8:11 am
Paxton, over the Florida and Texas social media censorship laws. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 9:01 pm
University of Texas at Austin (echoing the blockbuster Grutter v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 8:00 am
The challengers in California v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court didn’t address and debunk ISL on the merits (as it later did last summer in Moore v Harper), the Court dismissed Texas’s filing on the ground that Texas lacked standing under Article III because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. [read post]
