Works matching DE "STARE decisis"
1
- 2015
- BOEGLIN, JACK;
- TARANTO, JULIUS
- Opinion
2
- Yale Law Journal, 2015, v. 124, n. 5, p. 1825
- Article
3
- Creighton Law Review, 2015, v. 48, n. 2, p. 289
- Article
4
- Artificial Intelligence & Law, 2013, v. 21, n. 3, p. 341, doi. 10.1007/s10506-013-9141-3
- Article
5
- New York University Law Review, 2023, v. 98, n. 5, p. 1754
- ULLENDORFF, JONAH CHARLES
- Article
6
- New York University Law Review, 2023, v. 98, n. 3, p. 962
- Article
7
- New York University Law Review, 2017, v. 92, n. 6, p. 2094
- Article
8
- Maryland Law Review, 2023, v. 83, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
9
- Duke Law Journal, 2024, v. 73, n. 7, p. 1501
- Article
10
- Duke Law Journal, 2012, v. 61, n. 5, p. 941
- Article
11
- California Law Review, 1995, v. 83, n. 6, p. 1309, doi. 10.2307/3480872
- Article
12
- California Law Review, 1971, v. 59, n. 3, p. 715, doi. 10.2307/3479599
- Article
13
- California Law Review, 1964, v. 52, n. 5, p. 921, doi. 10.2307/3479211
- Article
15
- California Legal History, 2019, v. 14, p. 529
- Article
16
- Law, Culture & the Humanities, 2019, v. 15, n. 2, p. 319, doi. 10.1177/1743872115627413
- Article
18
- Law, Culture & the Humanities, 2008, v. 4, n. 3, p. 382, doi. 10.1177/1743872108093103
- Article
19
- Emory Law Journal, 2013, v. 62, n. 6, p. 1459
- Article
20
- Emory Law Journal, 2009, v. 58, n. 4, p. 831
- Article
21
- New York Law School Law Review, 2019, v. 64, n. 2, p. 135
- Article
22
- Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 2019, v. 58, p. 1
- Article
23
- Washburn Law Journal, 2016, v. 55, n. 3, p. 759
- Article
24
- Sydney Law Review, 2024, v. 46, n. 3, p. 347, doi. 10.30722/slr.19761
- Article
25
- Cardozo Law Review, 2016, v. 38, n. 2, p. 797
- Article
27
- Capital University Law Review, 2016, v. 44, n. 3, p. 461
- Article
28
- Ohio State Law Journal, 2021, v. 82, n. 4, p. 587
- Article
29
- Ohio State Law Journal, 2021, v. 82, n. 4, p. 565
- Article
30
- Ohio State Law Journal, 2014, v. 75, n. 2, p. 293
- Article
31
- Journal of Criminal Law, 2006, v. 70, n. 2, p. 121, doi. 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.2.121
- Article
32
- Journal of Criminal Law, 2005, v. 69, n. 4, p. 295, doi. 10.1350/jcla.2005.69.4.295
- Article
33
- Michigan Law Review, 2017, v. 115, n. 4, p. 439
- Article
34
- Michigan Law Review, 2012, v. 111, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
35
- Michigan Law Review, 2011, v. 110, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
36
- Law & Philosophy, 2024, v. 43, n. 1, p. 1, doi. 10.1007/s10982-023-09476-y
- Article
37
- Law & Contemporary Problems, 2012, v. 75, n. 3, p. 115
- Article
39
- George Washington Law Review, 2012, v. 80, n. 6, p. 1813
- Article
40
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 2010, v. 39, n. 1, p. 39
- Article
41
- Denver Law Review, 2017, v. 94, n. 4, p. 627
- Article
42
- Feminist Legal Studies, 2023, v. 31, n. 3, p. 391, doi. 10.1007/s10691-022-09505-6
- Article
43
- California Law Review, 2015, v. 103, n. 5, p. 1139
- Article
44
- Antitrust Bulletin, 2007, v. 52, n. 3/4, p. 531, doi. 10.1177/0003603X0705200308
- Article
45
- Antitrust Bulletin, 2007, v. 52, n. 3/4, p. 475, doi. 10.1177/0003603X0705200307
- Article
46
- University of Louisville Law Review, 2021, v. 60, n. 1, p. 57
- Ehrlich, Sam C.;
- Rodenberg, Ryan M.
- Article
47
- Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 2012, v. 12, n. 2, p. 261, doi. 10.5235/14729342.12.2.261
- Article
48
- Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 2018, v. 30, n. 2, p. 62
- Article
49
- Jurisprudence / Jurisprudencija, 2009, v. 2, n. 116, p. 201
- Article
50
- Florida Bar Journal, 2015, v. 89, n. 10, p. 40
- Article