Works matching United States v. Jones
1
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2012, v. 24, n. 2, p. 101
- Emmas, Kevin;
- Pallas, Tamara
- Article
3
- Maryland Law Review, 2013, v. 72, n. 3, p. 997
- Article
4
- Creighton Law Review, 2015, v. 48, n. 3, p. 553
- Article
5
- Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, 2013, v. 9, n. 1, p. 7
- Article
6
- Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 2012, v. 8, p. 1
- Article
7
- Pace Law Review, 2013, v. 33, n. 2, p. 683, doi. 10.58948/2331-3528.1832
- Article
8
- University of the Pacific Law Review, 2017, v. 48, n. 2, p. 395
- Article
9
- Ohio State Law Journal, 2013, v. 74, n. 5, p. 807
- Article
10
- North Carolina Law Review, 2012, v. 91, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
11
- George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 2014, v. 24, n. 3, p. 349
- Article
13
- Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2013, v. 103, n. 3, p. 803
- Article
14
- Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2013, v. 103, n. 3, p. 985
- Article
15
- Law & Contemporary Problems, 1998, v. 61, n. 4, p. 249, doi. 10.2307/1192438
- Article
16
- New England Law Review, 2012, v. 46, n. 4, p. 843
- Article
17
- Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 2013, v. 15, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
18
- Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2013, v. 103, n. 3, p. 745
- GRAY, DAVID;
- CITRON, DANIELLE KEATS;
- RINEHART, LIZ CLARK
- Article
19
- American Business Law Journal, 1984, v. 22, n. 2, p. 227, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1714.1984.tb00791.x
- Article
20
- University of Toledo Law Review, 2016, v. 47, n. 2, p. 413
- Article
21
- George Washington Law Review, 2012, v. 80, n. 4, p. 1209
- Article
22
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2013, v. 25, n. 2, p. 244
- Article
23
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2012, v. 24, n. 2, p. 169
- Article
24
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2012, v. 24, n. 2, p. 101
- Article
25
- Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 2014, v. 23, n. 2, p. 409
- Article
26
- Alabama Law Review, 2013, v. 64, n. 4, p. 803
- Article
27
- South Dakota Law Review, 2018, v. 63, n. 2, p. 450
- Article
28
- South Dakota Law Review, 2013, v. 58, n. 1, p. 158
- Article
29
- Journal of Church & State, 2017, v. 59, n. 4, p. 566, doi. 10.1093/jcs/csw049
- Article
30
- Boston University Law Review, 2014, v. 94, n. 6, p. 1809
- Article
32
- New York Law School Law Review, 2014, v. 59, n. 4, p. 761
- Article
33
- Hamline Law Review, 2015, v. 38, n. 3, p. 467
- Article
34
- Arkansas Law Review (1968-present), 2020, v. 73, n. 3, p. 531
- Article
35
- Washington Law Review, 2017, v. 92, n. 4, p. 1819
- Article
36
- Boston Review, 2012, v. 37, n. 1, p. 10
- Article
37
- Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 2013, v. 31, n. 3, p. 925
- Article
38
- Michigan Law Review, 2013, v. 111, n. 4, p. 485
- Article
39
- Michigan Law Review, 2012, v. 111, n. 3, p. 311
- Article
40
- California Law Review, 2014, v. 102, n. 3, p. 729
- Article
41
- Regent University Law Review, 2016, v. 29, n. 2, p. 309
- Article
42
- Regent University Law Review, 2011, v. 24, n. 2, p. 403
- Article
43
- Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2013, v. 26, n. 2, p. 619
- Article
44
- Tennessee Law Review, 2012, v. 80, n. 1, p. 211
- Article
45
- American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2013, v. 38, n. 4, p. 535, doi. 10.1007/s12103-012-9185-z
- Hughes, Tom “Tad”;
- Burton, Corey
- Article
46
- 2014
- Callahan, Mary Ellen;
- Cook, Elisebeth;
- Grant, John;
- Isles, Adam;
- Nojeim, Greg;
- O'Harrow, Robert;
- Rotenberg, Marc;
- Vladeck, Stephen I.
- Proceeding
47
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2017, v. 40, n. 2, p. 255
- Article
48
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2014, v. 37, n. 1, p. 329
- Article
49
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2013, v. 36, n. 2, p. 457
- Article
50
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2011, v. 34, n. 3, p. 1131
- Article