Search for: "Stone v. Powell" Results 61 - 80 of 98
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2007, 10:49 am
See also Bakke, supra, at 312, 313 (opinion of Powell, J.). [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 6:30 am by Richard Primus
 Only in the 1940s did Chief Justice Stone resuscitate the nationalist use of McCulloch, with assists from historians Thomas Reed Powell and Charles Beard. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 4:31 pm by INFORRM
Reserved Judgments George  v Cannell, heard on 14 June 2022 (Underhill V-P, Warby and Snowden LLJ) The Duke of Sussex v Associated Newspaper [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 6:04 pm by John Elwood
Young, 13-95, yet another state-on-top habeas case (this time from the Second Circuit), concerns a whole slew of habeas fun, but in the main asks whether the state can forfeit application of the old rule from Stone v. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 6:23 am by Jennifer Davis
Justice Byron White delivered the opinion of the Court, joined with Chief Justice Burger and Justices Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor (Stone, 472). [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 7:53 am by Adam Chandler
Past winners include Chief Justice Burger and Justices Frankfurter, Holmes, Powell, Marshall, Brennan, O’Connor, and Kennedy. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
  Preemption, of course, would be The Beatles, and Daubert/Frye the Rolling Stones. [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 8:29 am by John Elwood
Young, 13-95, the state-on-top habeas case asking whether (1) a state can forfeit application of the Stone v. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 6:49 am by ERIC J DIRGA PA
The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to “deter future unlawful conduct,” Stone v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 11:09 am by Kent Scheidegger
  (This is a variant on Judge Friendly's 1970 proposal and an extension of Stone v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
Young 13-95Issue: (1) Whether the state forfeits an argument that Stone v. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 4:15 am by Gideon
Realizing that an unaided layman may have little skill in arguing the law or in coping with an intricate procedural system, Powell v. [read post]