Search for: "Parker v. District of Columbia"
Results 81 - 100
of 128
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2015, 9:51 am
In Parker v. [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 2:59 pm
Supreme Court grants certiorari in District of Columbia v. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 8:57 am
The case is Parker, et al., v. [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 10:43 am
V. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 2:36 pm
” City of Columbia v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 12:04 pm
Finally, numerous states and localities, such as New York and the District of Columbia, already have passed legislation to expressly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 12:04 pm
Finally, numerous states and localities, such as New York and the District of Columbia, already have passed legislation to expressly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 3:44 am
Bartenfelder v Bartenfelder, Nos. 0934, 2052 [Ct. [read post]
13 Feb 2016, 4:25 pm
He was a force among the Supreme Court's so-called conservatives, a major player driving the wins in cases reviled by so-called liberals, including probably the two most recent ones: District of Columbia v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 1:30 pm
Parker v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Ellis v. [read post]
7 May 2014, 11:11 am
District Court for the District of Columbia. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 29, 2008 US v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 11:29 am
In District of Columbia v. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 8:46 am
As of now, 31 states (including the District of Columbia) have enacted similar statutes, with Maryland and Vermont leading the way by becoming the first states to do so in 2010. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 3:55 pm
District of Columbia,] 478 F.3d 370 at 400 [D.C. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
App. 2006) (approving jury instruction based on Restatement §908).District of Columbia: Destefano v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 7:25 pm
Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), the case in which the U.S. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 4:05 pm
Thus, "banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep' and use for protection of one's home and family, ' [Parker v District of Columbia,] 478 F3d [370] at 400 [DC Cir 2007], would fail constitutional muster. [read post]
