Search for: "United States v. Louisiana" Results 61 - 80 of 1,754
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2008, 7:15 pm
March 27th marked six months in the United States without an execution. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 12:06 pm
United States (06-7517); Bridge v. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 1:49 pm by Mark L. McNamara and Collin R. Melancon
On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted review of the Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. [read post]
26 Nov 2008, 4:37 am
From the opinion:On remand from the United States Supreme Court, Kennedy v. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 6:12 pm
ANN. ยงยง 40:76 and 40:77, and that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution of the United States, Louisiana owes full faith and credit to the New York adoption decree that declares J .C. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 9:46 am by Steven Boutwell
  Under guidance from the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Daimler AG v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 1:29 pm by WIMS
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 11:04 am by Ruthann Robson
Professor Ruthann Robson, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law The United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Ramos v. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 7:40 pm
I, § 4 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 6:33 am by Steven Boutwell
”[6] It is important to note that the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) defines its own rule for “waters of the state. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 6:14 am by Walter James
On June 20, 2012, Cody Tuma was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana after having pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of discharges to the Red River in violation of the CWA. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 12:19 am by Lawrence Solum
Ferguson the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Louisiana statute mandating separate but (in reality not) equal railway accommodations for black and white passengers did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. [read post]