Search for: "Shaw v. Reno" Results 21 - 40 of 40
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2015, 11:24 am by John Elwood
They argued, among other things, that (1) the three-judge panel ran afoul of Shaw v. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:30 am by John Elwood
Finally, Rapelje v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 9:33 am by Richard Hasen
It calls into mind Daniel Lowenstein’s critique of the predominant factor test from Shaw v. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 10:52 am by Maureen Johnston
Reno violation was based on clearly erroneous fact-finding; and (4) whether the majority erred in holding that strict scrutiny requires a legislature to adopt the least restrictive means possible for complying with the Voting Rights Act, instead of a redistricting plan that substantially addresses such compliance. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 7:10 pm by Maureen Johnston
The petition of the day is: Cantor v. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 12:02 pm by Richard Hasen
Although Section 2 requires jurisdictions with large minority populations to take race into account in drawing district lines, in a series of cases beginning with the 1993 case of Shaw v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 8:13 am by Amy Howe
Reno, tomorrow at 6 p.m. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 3:33 pm by Cynthia L. Hackerott
Citing Shaw v Reno (509 U.S. 630, 1993), he asserted that, in cautioning against impermissible racial stereotypes, the Supreme Court has rejected the assumption that all individuals of the same race think alike, but that proposition would be a necessary beginning point were the Seattle formulation to control. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 5:05 am
In the 1990s, the 5-4 Supreme Court held in a line of cases starting with Shaw v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 5:04 am
Redickand most of all  Coach K”; (d) “she performed superbly in a 1L Ames [moot court] competition against two  current members of the Elect, Michael Gottlieb and [Dorothy] Hien Tran (who were also outstanding, and who are now Danielle’s good friends)”; (e) Danielle “came up with an incisive interpretation of  Shaw v. [read post]