Works matching Ninth Amendment
1
- Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 2021, v. 24, p. 1, doi. 10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a8624
- Article
2
- Stanford Law Review, 2008, v. 60, n. 4, p. 895
- Article
3
- University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 2023, v. 84, n. 4, p. 899, doi. 10.5195/lawreview.2023.958
- Farinacci-Fernós, Jorge M.
- Article
5
- Iowa Law Review, 2008, v. 93, n. 3, p. 801
- Article
6
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2008, p. 467
- Article
8
- Maryland Law Review, 2024, v. 83, n. 3, p. 867
- Article
9
- Journal of Law & Health, 2024, v. 37, n. 2, p. 105
- Article
10
- Indiana Law Journal, 2025, v. 100, n. 4, p. 1959
- Article
11
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 1994, v. 1994, n. 1, p. 51
- Article
12
- Texas Law Review, 2006, v. 85, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
13
- Texas Law Review, 2005, v. 83, n. 3, p. 597
- Article
14
- Texas Law Review, 2004, v. 83, n. 2, p. 331
- Article
16
- Akron Law Review, 2016, v. 49, n. 1, p. 179
- Article
18
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 1996, v. 1996, n. 2, p. 351
- Article
19
- Journal on European History of Law, 2024, v. 15, n. 1, p. 173
- Article
20
- Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 2013, v. 28, n. 1, p. 39
- Article
21
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011, v. 2011, n. 3, p. 911
- Article
23
- Mercer Law Review, 2017, v. 68, n. 2, p. 389
- Article
24
- Columbia Law Review, 2011, v. 111, n. 3, p. 498
- Article
25
- Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu, 2022, v. 29, n. 2, p. 311, doi. 10.54070/hljk.29.2.4
- Article
26
- Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 1993, v. 1993, n. 1, p. 58
- Article
27
- Villanova Law Review, 2022, v. 67, n. 4, p. 759
- Article
28
- Denver University Law Review, 2012, v. 90, n. 1, p. 1
- HAFEMEISTER, THOMAS L.;
- GEORGE, JEFF
- Article
29
- Boston College Law Review, 2018, v. 59, n. 9, p. 1
- Article
30
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011, v. 2011, n. 1, p. 227
- Article
31
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011, v. 2011, n. 1, p. 209
- Article
32
- Kansas Law Review, 2021, v. 69, n. 4, p. 647
- Article
34
- Stanford Law Review, 2008, v. 60, n. 4, p. 937
- Article
35
- Indiana Law Review, 2017, v. 50, n. 2, p. 421, doi. 10.18060/4806.1143
- Article
36
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2017, v. 2017, n. 2, p. 331
- Article
37
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 1996, v. 1996, n. 1, p. 183
- Article
38
- Loyola Law Review, 2020, v. 67, n. 1, p. 13
- Article
39
- Brooklyn Law Review, 2012, v. 78, n. 1, p. 65
- Article
43
- Albany Law Review, 2020, v. 84, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
44
- Hastings Center Report, 1997, v. 27, n. 1, p. 27, doi. 10.2307/3528023
- Article
45
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 1998, v. 1998, n. 1, p. 55
- Article
46
- American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 2022, v. 30, n. 1, p. 81
- Article
47
- George Washington International Law Review, 2017, v. 49, n. 3, p. 569
- Article
49
- Teoria y Realidad Constitucional, 2011, n. 28, p. 179
- Article
50
- Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 2011, v. 45, n. 2, p. 225
- Article