Search for: "Young v. Wilkinson"
Results 1 - 20
of 42
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2010, 11:49 pm
After all, Justices Scalia and Thomas have repeatedly written in favor of the traditional understanding of Ex parte Young, and, of the current Justices, only Justice Kennedy seems more positively disposed toward Judge Wilkinson's approach.All of this is a long way of saying that I suspect there will be some fun and serious heavy lifting later this year on the continuing meaning, relevance, and force of Ex parte Young. [read post]
20 May 2015, 3:02 am
James Rhodes ([2015] UKSC 32), the Supreme Court has put the case of Wilkinson v. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 12:09 am
Harvie Wilkinson III, said no. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 6:00 am
Wilkinson, Jr. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 6:00 am
Wilkinson, Jr. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 1:57 am
Wilkinson in abeyance pending the Court’s resolution of People v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 10:39 am
The Fourth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Wilkinson, held that they could not. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 5:34 am
Steven Hager PDF Reprint: The Rule of Law: McGirt v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 12:47 pm
Jeff Johnson (Harvard 2010 / Wilkinson) 2. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 4:14 pm
The Supreme Court said in Young v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 6:35 am
” Frontiero v. [read post]
12 Feb 2007, 9:49 pm
Young, U.S. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 2:00 am
Young Armstead. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 10:13 am
Harvie Wilkinson on the U.S. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
The normal order of things is of course for young people to claim to be older than they really are. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
The normal order of things is of course for young people to claim to be older than they really are. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 1:21 pm
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded today in Peltier v. [read post]
1 Aug 2010, 8:04 pm
In today’s case (Hmaied v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 8:02 am
The judge identified the average consumer as an adult buying toys for young children. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 6:52 pm
Furthermore, Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Pepper v Hart said that Article IX was ‘a provision of the highest constitutional importance’ which ‘should not be narrowly construed’. [read post]
