Search for: "Jones v. Kemp" Results 1 - 20 of 32
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2013, 8:09 am by David S. Kemp
Kemp is an attorney, writer, and editor at Justia. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 1:00 am by CAFE
Kemp(1987) An article in the Washington Post on the McCleskey opinion and dissent (“fear of too much justice”) A 1994 paper by David Baldus and co. addressing to the “inevitability doctrine” SCOTUS decisions concerning life sentences without parole for juveniles: Graham v. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 9:00 pm by Austin Sarat
”But twenty-five states still continue to have laws on the books that allow for life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.Just last year, in Jones v Mississippi, the Supreme Court refused to go beyond Miller. [read post]
28 May 2010, 5:49 am by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
Head(11th Cir. 2001); and Jones v. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 4:19 pm by Stephen Bilkis
It is well settled that a criminal defendant has no statutory or constitutional right to compel a complainant to undergo a pretrial psychological examination as ruled in the landmark cases of Matter of Brown v Blumenfeld and People v Kemp. [read post]
17 Nov 2019, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
On 12 November 2019 IP Kat covered the case of Herbay v Hungary, Appl. [read post]
24 Nov 2019, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
On 21 November 2019, Steyn J heard an application in the case of UUU v BBB. [read post]
10 Nov 2019, 4:38 pm by INFORRM
On 6 and 7 November 2019 the Supreme Court (Lady Hale and Lords Reed, Kerr, Hodge and Lloyd-Jones) heard the appeal in the case of W M Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
The Panopticon Blog has covered the case of Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1780. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 12:12 pm by INFORRM
IPSO 10382-22 Mitchell v The Sentinel, 1 Accuracy (2021), Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication Satisfactory Remedy – 10512-22 Bavister v cornwalllive.com, 1 Accuracy (2021), Resolved – satisfactory remedy 01732-22 Rahman v Mail Online, 1 Accuracy (2021), 2 Privacy (2021), 3 Harassment (2021), 12 Discrimination (2021), No breach – after investigation 00627-22 Doe v You (The Mail on Sunday), 2 Privacy (2021), No breach –… [read post]