Search for: "Parker v. Levy" Results 1 - 20 of 50
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2007, 4:24 pm
Levy of the Cato Institute discusses the March 9th ruling in Parker v. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 5:03 am
Robert Levy, a Cato Institute senior fellow and co-counsel for the plaintiffs who successfully challenged the District of Columbia's gun laws in Parker v. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 5:09 am by SHG
David Meyer-Lindenberg crosses Chairman of the Board of Cato Institute, Robert Levy. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:42 am by Dwight Sullivan
That third issue sounds curiously like Parker v. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 3:04 am by Amy Howe
  I previewed the decision for this blog, while law students Jessica Kim and Michael Levy did the same for Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. [read post]
17 May 2007, 12:16 pm
Yesterday, Robert Levy had this editorial in The Hill advising the DC government to seek Supreme Court review of the Parker opinion, which overturned the DC handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds. [read post]
26 May 2012, 9:26 am by Zachary Spilman
The majority recognizes, as it must, that under Parker v Levy, and our own case law, “under appropriate circumstances conduct that is constitutionally protected in civilian society could still be viewed as prejudicial to good order and discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” __ M.J. __ (9) (C.A.A.F., 2012). [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 1:00 am by Ryan Dolby-Stevens, Olswang LLP
The Supreme Court has recently heard a case concerning the applicability of penalty clauses, under both the common law and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in the context of charges levied on users of private car parks. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 4:56 pm by Zachary D Spilman
Additionally, the Government Division argues that Article 134 is a public welfare offense (where strict liability – an no mens rea requirement – applies): In [Parker v. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 2:55 am by Zachary D Spilman
Manos, 8 C.M.A. 734, 735, 25 C.M.R. 238, 239 (1958) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Parker v. [read post]