Search for: "Davis v. Washington" Results 301 - 320 of 1,215
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jul 2018, 3:28 am by Edith Roberts
” At the George Washington Law Review’s Notice and Comment blog, Anita Sinha responds to the court’s decision in the entry-ban case, Trump v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 4:56 am by Kathy Kapusta
Reviving her suit for a second time, the appeals court reversed summary judgment and remanded (Davis v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:32 am by Andrew Hamm
” Lastly, about Ortiz v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:02 am by Josh Blackman
Hawaii in a pithy headline for the Washington Post: “In travel ban case, Supreme Court considers ‘the president’ vs. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 12:30 pm by Dan Ernst
  THURSDAY The Rights Revolution in Action: The Transformation of State Institutions after the 1960sThu, 6/7: 8:00 AM—9:45 AM, Sheraton Centre Toronto, Forest Hill ·         Chair/Discussant—Sara Mayeux, Vanderbilt University ·         Ingraham v. [read post]
25 May 2018, 6:41 am by John Elwood
Monday’s order list was a striking illustration of how nice it is to have Washington on your side: Of the four relisted cases the Supreme Court agreed to review, the government (either as amicus or respondent) had told the court that review was warranted in three of them. [read post]
18 May 2018, 8:02 am by John Elwood
And this week’s relists illustrate a fundamental truth: It’s nice to have Washington on your side. [read post]
8 May 2018, 7:30 am by Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD
  Agency Contact: Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC  20004, telephone (202) 272-2019, e-mail: atorresdavis@ncd.gov. [read post]
2 May 2018, 2:59 pm by Matthew Scott Johnson
On April 3-5, Professor Rishi Batra co-chaired the ABA Representation in Mediation Competition in Washington, DC. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 9:07 am by MBettman
Washington, 542 U.S.296 (2004) (Striking down  Washington’s criminal sentencing procedures that allowed a judge rather than a jury to make findings that increased the penalty beyond the statutory maximum.) [read post]