Search for: "Long v. Briscoe"
Results 1 - 20
of 49
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jan 2010, 11:56 am
Briscoe v. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 3:22 am
On Monday, the Supreme Court had oral argument in Briscoe v. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 4:17 am
Adam Liptak has an article in the New York Times on the January 11th oral argument scheduled in Briscoe v. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 6:04 am
McCoy v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 9:01 pm
In his concurring opinion in Ricci v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 3:31 pm
It is long past time to discard this outmoded rule. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 11:24 am
Well, that didn't take too long. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 11:24 am
BauerDefenses: Qualified official immunityPrivate-Law Models for Official Immunity, by Richard EpsteinTort - Defamation - Elected Official Immunity, by Edward WesoloskiThe Case Against Official Immunity, by Jesse WalkerAbsolute Immunity on Trial, by Radley BalkoSupreme Court rules witnesses cannot be sued under 1983 for the content of their testimony - Briscoe v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 7:36 am
Over the weekend the New York Times ran a story by Adam Liptak previewing a US Supreme Court case ("Justices revisit rule requiring lab testimony," Dec. 19) called Briscoe v. [read post]
7 Mar 2018, 7:25 am
As for Dill v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 10:42 am
Gant clashed with long-standing precedent in 1981’s New York v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 4:05 pm
Briscoe was brought in response to the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ricci v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:31 am
Fields Famous Brands, LLC v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 12:16 pm
Matt also wrote about an article explaining the significance of a case to be argued in January, Briscoe v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 7:19 am
After hearing argument January 11 in a sequel case, Briscoe v. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 3:31 am
So the California Supreme Court’s 2004 decision (Gates v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 4:47 pm
In the court below (6 F4th 1160 (10th Cir, 2021)), the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Briscoe J, Murphy J concurring; Tymkovich CJ dissenting) held that, although the appellant’s First Amendment rights were engaged, the State satisfied strict scrutiny: Colorado had a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services, and no option short of coercing speech could satisfy that interest. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 6:33 am
In Briscoe v. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 7:49 am
The 10th Circuit ruling in Pavatt v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:51 am
Briscoe v. [read post]
