Search for: "Jack Hunter v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 53
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2024, 9:04 am
Hunter is pursuing the arguments from Bruen v. [read post]
23 Apr 2024, 11:53 am
United States whether Jack Smith has standing to defend the D.C. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 6:06 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 4:23 am
by Dennis Crouch Jack Frolow v. [read post]
21 Apr 2024, 2:25 pm
United States. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:31 pm
Washington, D.C. super-lawyer, Gene Schaerr, has filed an amicus brief in United States v. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 7:18 am
The state of Oklahoma, through Attorney General Mike Hunter, joined a 20-state amicus brief led by the state of Texas in support of the petitioners, a bakery corporation and its owner, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 11:18 am
Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
9 Apr 2022, 9:58 am
Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith—along with eight other scholars—recommended principles for Electoral Count Act reform. [read post]
27 May 2012, 8:23 am
Hunter S. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 9:38 am
United States. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 12:33 am
Scene V. [read post]
9 Aug 2023, 5:00 am
That includes United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 9:58 am
Judge Mathias states the issues as: "Whether Indiana's Hunter Harassment Act is constitutional; and Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Shugers' convictions under the Hunter Harassment Act. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 9:00 pm
DorfMy latest Verdict column examines the all-but-endorsement of the unitary executive theory by Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in Friday's SCOTUS decision in United States ex rel Polansky v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Jack Eckerd Corp., 434 S.E.2d 63, 67-69 (Ga. [read post]
9 Aug 2023, 6:02 am
This process is not bound by the strictures of the United States Code. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 10:54 am
Baber and Robert V. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 5:06 am
In Lujan v. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 12:12 pm
As Lord Mansfield said in 1769, in the case of R. v. [read post]
