About
Free legal information for all at http://law.cornell.edu/.
3,742
people like this
Legal Information Institute (LII)
Like
bit.lyNOTICE:This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order t
j.mpNOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See U- RECENT ACTIVITY
"Thanks for the link, Shawn." on Shawn Landres's link.
It's opening day 2011 for baseball. Baseball has, traditionally, held a special place in lawmakers' and judges' hearts. A recent NY Times article discussed the Supreme Court Justices' love of the game...- Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing (09-993); Actavis Elizabeth, LLC v. Mensing (09-1039); Actavis, Inc. v. Demahbit.lyAppealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Nov. 27, 2009); United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Jan. 8, 2010)
- bit.lyon writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit [March 29, 2011] Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office now concedes that, in prosecuting respondent John Thompson for attempted armed robbery, pros...
- bit.lyRespondent Betty Dukes and other women have brought a Title VII employment discrimination case against Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class action comprised of all women employed at any Wal-Mart store since December 26
- Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (10-238) and McComish v. Bennett (10-239) (consolidated) | LII /.bit.lyAt issue in these consolidated cases is the constitutionality of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act. Petitioners—several past and present candidates for elected office, and two political action committees—claim that the matching public funding provision of the Act burdens the free speech of cand
- bit.lyYou will be sent email requesting confirmation, to prevent others from gratuitously subscribing you. This is a hidden list, which means that the list of members is available only to the list administrator. You may enter a privacy password; otherwise one will be generate
