Search for: "North v. NAACP" Results 61 - 80 of 157
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 May 2017, 10:28 am by Kent Scheidegger
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the legislature moved to intervene, muddying the waters. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 3:00 am by SOG Staff
The post News Roundup appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 3:00 am by SOG Staff
The post News Roundup appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law. [read post]
20 Jul 2017, 11:30 am
The court’s landmark decision in NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. affirmed the constitutional right of NAACP activists to hold a mass economic boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi, to protest the community’s persistent racial inequality and segregation. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 7:11 am
(Disclosure: Akin Gump filed the amicus brief of the NAACP in support of the petitioner.) [read post]
15 May 2017, 3:52 pm by Amy Howe
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. [read post]
26 May 2022, 2:16 pm by Dan Rodriguez
This narrow reading is ultimately too narrow, in that it reads the classic association rights cases, NAACP v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 11:02 am by John Elwood
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 16-833, which the court denied, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 1:36 pm by Adam Schlossman
Board of Education on African American Schools and Education in the South” –David Cecelski, historian and author of Along Freedom Road, Hyde County, North Carolina, and the Fate of Black Schools in the South Podcast on Brown v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 12:26 pm
The Florida Supreme Court entered orders accepting jurisdiction of a number of cases this month including: Universal Insurance Company of North America v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 7:18 am by Jennifer Davis
Nabrit, who was also a lead counsel for the NAACP at the time of Bolling v. [read post]
28 Jan 2022, 2:10 pm by Amy Howe
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (March 21): Whether Republican legislators who wanted to intervene to defend the North Carolina’s voter ID law were required to show that the state’s interest was not adequately represented by the state’s Democratic attorney general. [read post]