Search for: "New Jersey v. Smith" Results 1 - 20 of 580
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Apr 2025, 10:33 am by Dr. Adam Feldman
As NBC News reported, MAGA activists have turned against Barrett, with Davis calling her “weak and timid” and accusing her of having “her head up her a–. [read post]
25 Mar 2025, 5:13 am by Eugene Volokh
Smith (D.R.I.); Judge Smith expresses his disapproval of D.C. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2025, 2:51 am by Sasha Volokh
" Dale sued, and the state courts found that such discrimination violated New Jersey's public accommodations statute. [read post]
16 Jan 2025, 11:11 am by John Elwood
New Jersey, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [read post]
7 Jan 2025, 8:47 am by Eugene Volokh
City of New Brunswick, now pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court (see 258 N.J. 468 (2024), granting review of 2024 WL 1826867 (N.J. [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 6:00 am by Christopher G. Hill
One of the parties sues the other in New Jersey Superior Court or the District of New Jersey, and sues the general contractor for good measure. [read post]
30 Aug 2024, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
In a few of the biggest Supreme Court decisions of the last few years – including Dobbs v. [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
I’m grateful that the law school continues to train excellent citizen lawyers—a number of whom I’ve had the privilege of working with during my time as New Jersey Attorney General and now at the U.S. [read post]
5 Jul 2024, 12:42 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
” Kahn’s counsel investigated other stores in Illinois, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina finding overcharges. [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 4:40 am by Brittany Bromell
Last Friday, the United States Supreme Court decided Smith v. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Secondly, the court considered that, while no previous case has directly answered the question raised by the appeal, the cases of Bulman & Dickson v Fenwick & Co [1894] 1 QB 179 and Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1963] AC 691 provided strong implicit support for MUR’s case. [read post]