Search for: "State v. Lemieux" Results 1 - 20 of 37
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jul 2011, 8:32 am by Reproductive Rights
Planned Parenthood Is Not Nothing, by Scott Lemieux: The recent spate of anti-abortion regulations in states across the country has made me pessimistic about the future of reproductive rights, but Irin Carmon... [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 2:24 pm by Jon Levitan
This morning the court issued a 5-4 opinion in Carpenter v. [read post]
21 Oct 2016, 3:00 pm by Jon Katz
”  A counterpoint to the foregoing Lemieux decision is the unpublished People v. [read post]
23 Feb 2008, 8:48 am
The Second Department addressed this issue Tuesday in LeMieux v LeMieux, 2008 NY Slip Op 01510. [read post]
16 May 2014, 5:01 am by Amy Howe
” At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re discusses the cellphone privacy cases, United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 6:52 am by Nabiha Syed
Lyle Denniston provides a general overview of United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 7:23 am by Amy Howe
At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Marci Hamilton looks at the possibility that state legislators can nullify the effect of last Term’s decision in Burwell v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 4:15 am by Edith Roberts
” Commentary comes from Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns & Money. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 4:30 am by Amy Howe
Coverage of the four-four tie in United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 5:51 pm by Big Tent Democrat
As Scott Lemieux states, "[u]nder current practices, the AUMF George W. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 5:18 am by Amy Howe
”  And at The Guardian, Scott Lemieux describes the decision as “good news, but” also “a qualified victory,” because it “leaves open the possibility that states could undermine ‘one person, one vote,’ and at least some red state legislatures are likely to try it. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: In an op-ed at Reuters, Scott Lemieux weighs in on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 4:22 am by Amy Howe
At PrawfsBlawg, Seth Davis discusses standing and United States v. [read post]