Search for: "Marshall v. State" Results 161 - 180 of 4,381
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jul 2023, 11:26 pm by Josh Blackman
In responding to Justice Marshall's dissent, the Court described the governing standard quite differently, stating three times that an accommodation is not required when it entails "substantial" "costs" or "expenditures. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 10:49 pm by Josh Blackman
S. 29, 62 (1971) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 78 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Rosenblatt v. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 11:00 am by Guest Blogger
Tanner Allread  On June 15, Indian Country breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act in Haaland v. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 3:42 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Georgia, an 1832 landmark case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that state law “can have no force” in Indian country. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 12:28 pm by Josh Blackman
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 4:30 am by Eric Segall
In fact, the State of Maryland allowed someone to sue on its behalf pursuant to state law in the landmark case of McCullough v. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 7:09 pm by Jacob Fishman
Part V concludes with a report card on how the regime is doing on its thirtieth anniversary. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 2:19 pm by Josh Blackman
In my earlier post, I mentioned this passage reminded me of United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 10:15 am by Garrett West
United States, 524 U.S. 125, 129 (1998); Japan Whaling Association v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 5:26 am by centerforartlaw
It contributes to the creation and promotion of states’ national identity[20]. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 7:07 pm by Anna Bower
He then proceeds to introduce the case that brings us all to the Miami federal courthouse—or, rather, that brought us here 27 hours ago: The United States of America v. [read post]