Search for: "Hinkle v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 42
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2018, 2:06 pm by Andrew Hamm
As Hinkle and Nelson explain, the Supreme Court in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 1:26 pm by Ruthann Robson
Professor Ruthann Robson, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law In his 33 page opinion today in Brenner v. [read post]
25 Mar 2017, 10:45 am by Steven Wildberger
[JURIST] US Federal Judge Robert Hinkle on Thursday ruled [opinion, PDF] that the state of Florida must comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 2:55 pm by Lyle Denniston
  Judge Hinkle struck down all of them. [read post]
9 Oct 2007, 8:25 pm
HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center; LORETTA K. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 10:02 am by Mark Zamora
District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled the state law violates the patient consent provisions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). [read post]
3 Jan 2015, 3:45 pm by Howard Friedman
Judge Hinkle’s lecture, however, has no force of law, and only invites lawlessness throughout the state. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 1:17 pm by Lyle Denniston
In the wave of court rulings following the Supreme Court’s July 2013 ruling in United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 8:03 am by S & F Media LLC.
The state defendants  appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals under the case style Brenner v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 8:51 am by Lyle Denniston
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is now set to consider on January 9 whether to grant review of any or all of the second round of same-sex marriage cases to reach it in the wake of widespread activity in lower courts since the Justices last spoke on the rights of same-sex couples in United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 3:00 am by NCC Staff
But the biggest day for the future of same-sex marriage bans will be on Friday, as the Supreme Court meets in a private conference to decide if it will take a new set of cases to clarify its June 2013 ruling in the United States v. [read post]