Search for: "Harris v. State of Wisconsin" Results 1 - 20 of 157
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2014, 1:33 am by Jon Gelman
The gravest threat today to public-employee unions—which represent cops, firefighters, prison guards, teachers, nurses, and other city and state workers—is a Supreme Court case named Harris v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 9:09 pm by Marty Lederman
  Let's recount the harried developments concerning the Wisconsin primary of the past few days.1. [read post]
7 Apr 2008, 8:21 am
    Because the Court cavalierly rejected the regulation-spending distinction when reviewing state grant conditions in Wisconsin Department of Industry v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 6:46 am
  He also relied on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 8:00 am by Dan Ernst
Paul Ramirez (NU)• Evelyn Atkinson (University of Chicago), "The Right to Bodily Integrity: Pratt v. [read post]
10 Jan 2021, 7:45 pm by Matt Cooper
District of Columbia: In Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. [read post]
28 Jan 2021, 8:57 am by Unknown
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Dakota Access Pipeline)United States v. [read post]
2 Oct 2016, 9:02 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 133517 (D UT, Sept. 27, 2016), a Utah federal district court refused to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies an inmate's complaint that authorities ended certain Islamic meetings and he was retaliated against for filing grievances about religious diet accommodations.In Harris v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 9:38 pm by Walter Olson
Supreme Court has signaled possible interest on the part of at least one justice by asking for additional information in the pending case of Harris v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 2:27 pm by Nathaniel Sobel
Given the vast quantity of private information on an ordinary cell phone, the police’s actions in this case, State v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:55 am by Steve Erickson
  In reaching its conclusion that COMPAS does not violate due process by using gender (NB: Loomis did not bring an Equal Protection claim) the court highlights its previous decision in State v. [read post]