Search for: "Clark v. Butler*" Results 1 - 20 of 72
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  Then the solidly and increasingly conservative George Sutherland replaced the progressive John Clark, an event that proved to be “a significant turning point” (39) and “steered the Court sharply to the right” (45). [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
Bell as well as the anti-miscegenation statute at issue in Loving v. [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 4:00 am by Shea Denning
In December, the Court granted review in Fischer v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 4:37 pm by INFORRM
And the privacy interests protected by that constitutional tort have been balanced against the public interest in freedom of expression at irish law in exactly the same way that they were balanced at all three levels in Bloomberg (here, the leading case is Cogley v RTÉ [2005] 4 IR 79, [2005] IEHC 180 (8 June 2005) (Clarke J); see also Herrity v Associated Newspapers [2009] 1 IR 316, [2008] IEHC 249 (18 July 2008)… [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 2:13 am by INFORRM
On 10 March 2023 there was a contempt application in the case of Miller -v- Peake QB-2022-001106. [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 12:23 pm by Adam Faderewski
The State Bar of Texas’ Membership Department was informed in February and March 2021 of the deaths of these members. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 11:29 am
Drawing on the legal precedent of Korematsu v. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 8:02 am by Andrew Hamm
Justice James Clark McReynolds, of course, tops the list of failures. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 1:56 pm by Amanda Pickens
Here is a recap of August’s filings: Clark, et al. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2017, 11:30 am by Smita Ghosh
”In the London Review of Books, Andrew Bacevich covers The General v. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War by H.W. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 12:58 pm by Howard Friedman
Sullivan,(9th Cir., April 12, 2017), the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's RLUIPA complaint regarding restrictions on the wearing of dreadlocks.In Clark v. [read post]