Search for: "People v. Williams (1983)" Results 101 - 120 of 272
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Oct 2022, 6:03 am by Scott Bomboy
“Plaintiffs rely heavily on the plurality opinion of Justice [William] Brennan in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 9:08 am by Kyle Persaud
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit William A. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 9:08 am by Kyle Persaud
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit William A. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Janus didn't discuss Turner or PruneYard, and mentioned Rumsfeld only for the narrow proposition that "government may not 'impose penalties or withhold benefits based on membership in a disfavored group' where doing so 'ma[kes] group membership less attractive.'"[134] And the compelled contribution cases, of which Janus is the most recent, have drawn a line between compelling people to fund the views expressed by a particular private speaker (such as the… [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 7:50 am by Eugene Volokh
Aug. 29, 2004) (noting that the trial court had upheld a narrowly drawn criminal libel statute; the defendant did not argue the First Amendment on appeal); People v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am by Eugene Volokh
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]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
The State's immunity waiver applies equally to its municipal subdivisions, including cities (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195 [1978]). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
The State's immunity waiver applies equally to its municipal subdivisions, including cities (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195 [1978]). [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 12:40 pm
We got too many people on probation [for] felonies already, and . . . [read post]
Williams, 462 A.2d 491, 492 (Me. 1983)(“An offer of proof must not only detail the proposed [evidence] but must also support the admissibility of that [evidence]. [read post]