Search for: "Sullivan v. McDonald"
Results 41 - 60
of 61
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2010, 9:00 pm
Love, 593 F.3d at 11-13; Sullivan, 451 F.3d at 892-896; United States v. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 7:05 am
Florida and Sullivan v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 6:50 am
Florida and Sullivan v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:09 am
” Marquart v. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 7:24 am
McDonald v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 10:05 am
The decision below is here; the only discussion there is: The petitioner failed to demonstrate “proper cause” for the issuance of a “full carry” permit (Penal Law § 400.00[2][f]; Matter of Hecht v Bivona, 11 AD3d 614; Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d 395; Matter of Bando v Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691). [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 6:47 am
" In anticipation of oral argument in the gun rights case McDonald v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:06 am
Miller (Lewis and Clark), Judith V. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 6:57 am
Florida and Sullivan v. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 6:20 pm
Heller, and who’s counsel of record in McDonald v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 7:10 am
Florida and Sullivan v. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 6:59 am
Times op-ed discusses McDonald v. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 5:51 am
Times op-ed and continues to argue for overturning the life-without-parole sentence in Sullivan. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 6:11 am
Shatzer, Graham/Sullivan, McDonald, and American Needle) Robert Barnes focuses on the “newer” Justices and their impacts on this Term. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 4:54 am
Florida and Sullivan v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:53 am
Chicago, McDonald v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
., The (Boston, MA; David Sullivan, President) Arya Convenience, Inc. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008 US v. [read post]
11 May 2007, 5:30 pm
To the contrary, they indicated that as a matter of first impression, they would not have held that the statute bars this sort of private conduct at all -- that they were in dissent only because of Warren-Court-era decisions that they obviously doubt, such as McDonald v. [read post]
11 May 2007, 5:30 pm
To the contrary, they indicated that as a matter of first impression, they would not have held that the statute bars this sort of private conduct at all -- that they were in dissent only because of Warren-Court-era decisions that they obviously doubt, such as McDonald v. [read post]
