Search for: "MITCHELL v. JOHNSON" Results 21 - 40 of 184
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Department of Commerce (nikkikalbing@gmail.com) The Future of Law in British Africa on the Eve of IndependenceRabiat Akande, Harvard Law School (oakande@sjd.law.harvard.edu) Marginalizing "Secularism," Decolonizing the State: Missionary Advocacy for Religious Freedom in British Colonial Northern Nigeria, 1945-1960Terence Mashingaidze, Midlands State University, Zimbabwe (mashingaidzet@staff.msu.ac.zw) Constitutionalism and Ritual Controversies in a Zimbabwean Chiefdom,… [read post]
21 Jul 2019, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
On 18 July 2019 Nicklin J heard an application in the case of ARN v OSD. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 3:52 am by Edith Roberts
” At Justia’s Verdict blog, Sherry Colb and George El-Khoury “propose some alternative approaches that might yield the same outcome as” Mitchell v. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
At The Atlantic, Sarah Seo argues that Mitchell v. [read post]
11 Jul 2019, 8:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 4:17 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Conversation, Kevin Johnson finds it “telling” that, in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 8:09 am by sydniemery
Shannon’s article Prescribing a Balance: The Texas Legislative Responses to Sell v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 7:29 am by Andrew Hamm
” Goldwater lost to Johnson in a landslide. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 6:28 am
Kutler’s entry on New York Times Co. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 2:21 pm by David Kopel
The professors are: VC's Randy Barnett (Georgetown), Royce Barondes (Missouri), Robert Cottrol (George Washington), Nicholas Johnson (Fordham), Nelson Lund (George Mason), Joyce Malcolm (George Mason), George Mocsary (Southern Illinois), Joseph Olson (Mitchell Hamline), Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and Gregory Wallace (Campbell). [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 4:01 am by Edith Roberts
At Medium, Katy Naples-Mitchell urges the justices to review Johnson v. [read post]