Search for: "Poore v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 6,225
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
These votes seem much more aligned with the Republican Party’s desire to make it harder for people of color to vote than any reasonable interpretation of the United States Constitution.There is an aspect of equal protection clause doctrine that prohibits states from conditioning the exercise of fundamental rights on payments that the poor cannot afford. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 2:42 pm
A broad cross-ideological array of economists and land-use scholars have concluded that it is responsible for massive housing shortages in many parts of the United States, thereby cutting off millions of people – particularly the poor and minorities – from economic and social opportunities. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 12:07 pm
This would be a Scott v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 4:30 am
Exclusionary zoning is permitted under Euclid v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 2:01 pm
Clifford Davis in the “heart of the hood” and represented poor people in all aspects of law – criminal, civil, probate. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 6:39 am
Supreme Court handed down its decision in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 8:34 am
I have blogged before about the unfortunate reality that even 60 years after Gigeon v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 9:39 am
Exclusionary zoning is permitted under Euclid v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 11:41 pm
” That case, now styled Murthy v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 9:40 am
The Reuters report and hearing come as reports of threats against local, state and federal judges have proliferated nationwide. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 1:14 pm
Hensley v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:00 pm
Finally, as the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 12:24 pm
Leasing v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 6:07 am
The Health Plan Excess Fee Case Filed Against Johnson and Johnson In Lewandowski v. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 5:00 pm
NetChoice v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 7:24 am
” As stated by Justice Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
See State v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 9:35 am
Rosen’s article Katcoff v. [read post]