Search for: "North Dakota v. Barnes" Results 1 - 20 of 33
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Apr 2011, 12:30 pm by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
President Declares Emergency For North Dakota    The U.S. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 2:04 pm by Andrew Hamm
North Dakota, which challenges laws that make it a crime for a driver suspected of drunk driving to refuse a chemical test to measure his blood-alcohol concentration. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 2:56 am by Amy Howe
North Dakota, in which the Court held that the Constitution allows warrantless breath tests – but not warrantless blood tests – of suspected drunk drivers, comes from Stephen Montemayor for the StarTribune; commentary comes from Kenneth Jost, who at Jost on Justice interprets the ruling and last week’s decision in Utah v. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 4:16 am by Edith Roberts
Yesterday the court heard argument in Nielsen v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 6:00 am by Karen Tani
Diane Barnes, Youngstown State University  Law, Religion, and Manumissions: Delaware and Slavery, Darlene Spitzer-Antezana, Prince George’s Community College  Slave Manumissions and Property Rights in Antebellum Kentucky, Andrea S. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 9:00 pm by Dan Flynn
In 1990-92, such prohibitions were adopted in Montana, North Dakota and Kansas with virtually no prosecutions. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
Wetch, a challenge to North Dakota’s mandatory bar dues, that the court of appeals reconsider the case in light of Janus v. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 11:24 am by John Ehrett
Barnes 14-395Issue: Whether the Fourth Circuit contravened 28 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 1:08 pm by John Elwood
North Dakota, 14-973, a summertime sequel. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm by John Ehrett
Barnes 14-395Issue: Whether the Fourth Circuit contravened 28 U.S.C. [read post]
29 May 2012, 5:56 am
McKechnie, 656 N.W.2d 661 (N.D. 2003), the Supreme Court of North Dakota addressed a mistake similar to the mistake made by Vreeland, but found that the mistake did not constitute misconduct. [read post]