Search for: "People v. Butler" Results 61 - 80 of 320
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Oct 2010, 7:00 am by Ilya Somin
The federal ban that the Supreme Court upheld in Gonzales v. [read post]
15 May 2008, 8:37 am
The Evening Standard puts the case for the prosecution and puts former Judge Gerald Butler on the witness stand first: Gerald Butler QC, who was the senior judge at Southwark Crown Court for 13 years, said “What she has done is not appropriate for somebody who sits as a recorder. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 3:18 pm by Scott Hervey
  For example, in the 1979 Federal district case, Brilliant v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 3:45 am by Jim Harper
” So it is not surprising that Justice Butler’s dissent in Olmstead v. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 1:43 am by rhapsodyinbooks
” Paul Butler, Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, exposes a broader problem, in Poor People Lose: Gideon and the Critique of Rights, 122 YALE L.J. 2176 (2013). [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
  We've previously noted Zachary Newkirk’s "Full Justice May Be Done Them": The Case of Bill, Charles, Jupiter, Randolph, et al. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 11:38 am by Todd Zywicki
”  The full list of signees is attached as an Appendix to the brief, but among the signatories are two Nobel Laureates in Economics (Vernon Smith and Daniel McFadden) and many household names in economics and law and economics, including Donald Boudreaux, Henry Butler, Tyler Cowen, Harold Demsetz, Richard Epstein, Mark Grady, and a bunch of other people whose names just happen to come later in the alphabet and I fear slighting by my inability to list all of the… [read post]
20 May 2016, 11:01 am by Ilya Somin
Admittedly, such a program might well be permissible under existing Supreme Court precedent, most notably the Supreme Court’s 1916 decision in Butler v. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 10:45 pm
Justice Butler providing more commentary on the new BC Rule 37B. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 12:13 pm by mjpetro
Butler, 646 F.3d 1038, 1041-42 (8th Cir. 2011) (counting as participants recipients of fraudulent checks who cashed checks and split proceeds with other schemers); United States v. [read post]