Search for: "People v. Wells (1970)"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,132
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2010, 4:29 pm
Well, I cautioned people way back when that the Amendment merely spoke to the age at which a person could hold statewide office and did nothing to change the requirement that someone who was AG had to be a lawyer. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:17 pm
“Well, we’re ready,” Roberts replies. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 2:37 pm
The next two cases are the OmniCare v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:33 am
Contra, EEOC v. [read post]
29 May 2015, 8:25 am
Most of my new book The Grasping Hand, focuses on the broader legal and political issues raised by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 7:57 am
Wainwright, Roe v Wade, Brown v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 6:30 am
The petitioners’ brief in DeBoer v. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 10:45 am
Post Office Dep’t, 397 U.S. 728, 736–37 (1970) (holding that speech to an unwilling recipient is restrictable). [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
What these people had demonstrated during this period of time was that they did not recognize the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China over HKSAR, and they did not support the policy of the “One Country, Two systems”. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:00 am
The US District Court in Utah released a well-reasoned decision finding that the service, by transmitting via the Internet over-the-air TV programming to subscribers without any consent from the TV stations or their program suppliers, violated the copyrights that the stations have in their programming. [read post]
12 May 2013, 6:05 am
Jonathan V. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 2:05 pm
In the early 1970s, the U.S. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 8:39 am
(See United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am
There cannot be a rule under which "poor people ... have their speech enjoined, while the rich are allowed to speak so long as they pay damages. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 12:40 pm
In yesterday’s EEOC v. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 11:14 am
United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (commerce power could be used to apply an anti-discrimination statute to an establishment that served people in interstate travel and that could affect national policy); Katzenbach v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 6:39 am
Justice William Brennan, author of Sherbert v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:00 am
In the only dissenting judgment, Lady Hale observed that the parties had drawn the parameters of the appeal too narrowly (failing to focus of what she considered the nub of the case, namely the interpretation of s.2(1) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970) and had missed the opportunity to challenge the decision of the bare majority in R v Gloucestershire County Council, Ex p Barry [1997] AC 584. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 6:12 am
Briere v. [read post]
Criminal defendants must be well-groomed and properly dressed for court, and never be in jail attire
2 Jun 2016, 7:13 pm
The 1970’s leisure suit scare underlines that some people will choose clothing that will unfavorably distract the beholder. [read post]
