Search for: "State v. Hollingsworth"
Results 21 - 40
of 372
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2013, 9:05 am
The first is Hollingsworth v. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 10:35 am
Perry (docket no. 12-144) and United States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:25 pm
Perry (docket no. 12-144) and United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 10:00 am
Here is an incomplete below of the amicus briefs that were filed in support of the respondents from Hollingsworth v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 6:13 am
United States (on the federal Defense of Marriage Act) and Hollingsworth v. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 7:43 am
The Court's decisions in United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 12:06 pm
Perry (docket no. 12-144) and United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 3:08 pm
The opinion in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:30 pm
In United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:30 pm
In United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 5:49 am
More than a decade later, Hollingsworth filed a motion in state court, seeking to have his conviction overturned based on the Florida Supreme Court's 1999 ruling in Hayes v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 10:18 am
Perry, and United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 10:03 am
The audio recordings and transcripts of today's oral argument in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 8:48 am
Perry (12-144) and United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 12:58 pm
The California case, Hollingsworth v. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 5:44 am
Given the decisions regarding Same Sex Marriage handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 4:00 am
Perry and in United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 10:56 am
In Mason and Dixon Lines Incorporated v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 7:41 am
A big thanks to Will Baude for alerting me to yesterday's fascinating decision by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 2:38 pm
The first of the two closely-watched same sex marriage cases to be argued before the United States this morning prompted much tweeting and predictions, as well as the promised early release of the audio by the Supreme Court itself. [read post]
