Search for: "Powell v. Texas" Results 201 - 220 of 271
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Nov 2023, 5:24 am by Guest Author
 Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 546-554 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring) Daniels v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
The major problem with such an idea is that it guarantees that we will no longer get anyone on the Court who has had a truly significant non-judicial career as an elected public official or even private lawyer (such as Lewis Powell). [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
The Texas Supreme Court considered both of these questions this week in the case of Powell v. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 6:52 am
An Epitome of Great Legal Classics 1 v. (1915) Hughes, William Taylor   Office of Constable: Comprising the Laws Relating to High, Petty, and Special Constables, Headboroughs, Tithingmen, Borsholders, and  Watchmen, with an Account of Their Institution and Appointment 1 v. (1840) Willcock, John William   On Conveyancers' Evidence 1 v. (1839) Coventry, Thomas   On the Admissibility of Confessions and… [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 2:56 pm by INFORRM
On the same day, judgement was given for the defendant in Goldsmith v Bissett-Powell [2022] EWHC 1591 (QB) by Julian Knowles J (heard on 13 January 2022). [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 9:06 am by Michel Paradis
In an opinion that in many ways previews his opinion striking down Texas’ anti-sodomy law twenty-four years later in Lawrence v. [read post]
27 Feb 2022, 4:30 pm by INFORRM
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia On 24 February 2022, the Court of Appeal refused all fifteen grounds of appeal in Cheng v Pan; Cheng v Zhou [2022] NSWCA 21. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm by John Elwood
Only one Justice, Lewis Powell, believed that the rule should differ; but since he was the swing vote, his position became the law. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 9:47 pm
Texas was a contentious case raising fundamental constitutional issues, this Lawrence v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
Texas in determining that Virginia’s “crimes against nature” statute is not facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied to an adult male’s solicitation of a minor female, outside the home, to perform oral sodomy. [read post]