Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Hughes" Results 241 - 260 of 761
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jan 2018, 2:17 pm by John Elwood
” Since then, people who are actually smart have debated whether the issue remains live and certworthy or not, and even deployed my favorite Supreme Court put-down, the word “baffling. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 7:46 am by David Post
" The argument that the CTEA was unconstitutional for this very reason was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court (in Eldred v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 9:09 am by ASAD KHAN
The Supreme Court Lady Hale and Lords Kerr, Wilson, Hughes and Hodge unanimously allowed the appeals by consent. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 5:26 am by Steve Lubet
 The original tweeter, btw, was a guy named Ron Hughes, whom Bazian evidently follows. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 4:00 am by Guest Blogger
McInnes devotes an entire chapter to Hughes’ judicial role in the notorious case of Thatcher v Thatcher. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 9:02 pm by Sherry F. Colb
Colb, a Justia columnist, is Professor of Law and Charles Evans Hughes Scholar at Cornell Law School. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 1:17 am by EMMA FOUBISTER, MATRIX
Supreme Court Judgment Lady Hale, with whom Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agreed, gave the leading judgment. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 10:46 am by EMMA FOUBISTER, MATRIX
Indirect discrimination The policy did not put transgender people at a substantial disadvantage compared with cisgender people who were also subject to the policy [74]. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 4:55 am by INFORRM
Guy Vassall-Adams QC and Hugh Tomlinson QC are members of Matrix Chambers and the editors of Online Publication Claims: a Practical Guide. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 5:02 am by INFORRM
  Once again, we would like to thank all our readers and the many people who have contributed to the success of the blog over this period and particularly the large number of people who have written for us since 2010. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
The court concluded that giving parents the right to participate as parties (and be represented by counsel) directly undermined the Supreme Court’s holding in Bellotti v. [read post]