Search for: "McDonald v. State" Results 181 - 200 of 1,468
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Oct 2010, 12:01 pm
Now, after getting out of prison, you had some beers, went to a McDonald's, deliberately hung around the play structure while little kids played, and then grabbed a little girl's crotch and ran away when her father confronted you about it.You claim that it's cruel and unusual punishment to sentence you to life in prison under Washington state's "two strikes" law for child molesters. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 3:38 pm by Jason Mazzone
Heller (2008) and McDonald v. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 1:27 pm by WIMS
      On this subject, the majority indicates, ". . .we join the view articulated by the Ninth Circuit in McDonald v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:44 pm
A ruling by a Washington state court that the partnership was illegal and unenforceable was affirmed.The brothers decided to purchase a McDonald’s franchise and agreed that one of them would apply for the franchise and the other would supply a portion of money required for the purchase and for other initial operating costs. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 3:53 pm by Orin Kerr
The Petitioner's Reply Brief in McDonald v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am by DMLP Staff
Swift (Swift & McDonald, PC), Marlo P Cadeddu (Law Office of Marlo P Cadeddu)Court Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas: Dallas DivisionCourt Type: Federal The U.S. government filed three indictments, consisting of seventeen charges, against Barrett Brown, an independent journalist. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 1:55 pm
The petition in McDonald, et al., v. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 4:17 pm by Stephen Bilkis
United States v Yancey, 621 F3d 681 (7th Cir 2010) (per curiam) (rejecting Second Amendment challenge to 18 USC § 922(g)(3), which makes it a criminal felony for one who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance to possess a gun); United States v Seay, 620 F3d 919 (8th Cir 2010), pet. for cert. filed, Dec. 16, 2010 (same) (see also 620 F3d at 924-25, collecting cases); United States v Skoien, 614 F3d 638 (7th Cir 2010)… [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 10:52 pm by Randy Barnett
As Jim Lindgren has noted, on the eve of the argument in McDonald v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 3:11 pm by Eugene Volokh
My argument is that the Jury Trial Clause — as historically understood, and as accepted by the Court in federal cases — requires jury unanimity for a conviction, and that following McDonald v. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 3:30 am by Walter Olson
Agency interpretive letters are the wrong way to enact new federal law [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald on Cato amicus in school bathroom case, Gloucester County School Board v. [read post]