Search for: "People v. Superior Court" Results 81 - 100 of 3,473
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Aug 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
When there is evidence of real risk of such violence—for instance, possible physical retaliation against people who cooperated with the government[21] or risk of violence against an asylum seeker in his home country[22]—courts do indeed generally allow pseudonymity, entirely apart from whether the violence stems from religious views.[23] The same would apply to people who fear religion-related violence, as in Doe v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 11:09 am by Anna Bower
In a court filing prior to the hearing, Ellis’s legal team had pointed to Georgia Court of Appeals precedent in Kenerly v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 6:13 am by John Jascob
The state has no compelling interest in censoring speech it finds “repugnant,” the court wrote, and the First Amendment does not allow remedying unwanted speech with enforced silence (Honeyfund.com, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 9:10 am by Ilya Somin
Here's Ramsey: I was initially skeptical of the major questions doctrine (MQD), as deployed by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 6:34 am by Doyle Hodges
While not directly comparable, this is similar to the position affirmed by the Court in Gillette v. [read post]
15 Aug 2022, 3:23 pm by Anna Bower
Citing Supreme Court decisions in Eastland v. [read post]
15 Aug 2022, 1:03 pm by Josh Richman
Their brief asks the California Court of Appeal First Appellate District to overturn a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s ruling in the city’s favor. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 12:57 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Are the higher pleasures infinitely superior and always trump any quantity of lower? [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 9:48 am by Sandy Levinson
  There is a good reason that one speaks of rabbinic "courts" atop any given Chasidic movement. [read post]
29 Jul 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
The trial tested a rarely used criminal statute meant to ensure that people comply with congressional subpoenas. [read post]