Search for: "Smith v. Connor" Results 21 - 40 of 287
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jul 2009, 3:39 pm by Steven Hansen
As it turns out this Connors case below was not heard by the California or US Supreme Court.Essentially the court opinion below upheld the 1959 California Superme Court decision Cosper v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 12:18 pm by Orin Kerr
 (Michael Smith previewed the case yesterday for this blog.) [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 9:07 am by MBettman
” Chief Justice O’Connor, majority opinion On December 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in State v. [read post]
26 May 2020, 8:53 am by Eugene Volokh
[Footnote:] This brief also does not discuss the original meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, a matter treated in Justice Scalia's and Justice O'Connor's opinions in City of Boerne v. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 2:08 pm by Jeff Gamso
When the Supreme Court decided Roger Coleman's case (Coleman v. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 9:12 am by Steve Lubet
  In 1981, a recommendation from Rehnquist got Roberts a position in the newly installed Reagan administration, as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. [read post]
6 Jan 2023, 9:41 am by TOTM Admin
Smith, Stephen Weissman, Chris Wilson, Jamie France, and Connor Leydecker. [read post]
2 May 2007, 7:41 pm
May 2, 2007) (available here), included retired Justice Sandra Da yO'Connor (though Judge Smith wrote the opinion). [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 3:07 am by Peter Mahler
Matter of Smith v Russo, 230 AD2d 863 [2d Dept 1996]; Matter of Chu v Sino Chemists, 192 AD2d 315 [1st Dept 1993]), and the nature and extent of any intervening changes to the business and/or its value certainly could be considered. [read post]
1 Jun 2020, 3:31 pm by Dana Muir
The concurrence, however, raised an argument that Thomas has made dating back at least to his 1995 dissent (joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Antonin Scalia) in Varity Corp v. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 3:05 am by Walter Olson
Peter Thiel match-up [Jacob Gershman, WSJ] “Prosecutors Investigate Firms That Offer Plaintiffs Early Cash” [Matthew Goldstein and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, New York Times] Seventh Circuit: parents, not Starbucks, bore duty of protecting 3-year-old from harm resulting from playing on crowd-control stanchions [Roh v. [read post]