Search for: "LITTLE v. HOLDER"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,853
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2024, 4:58 pm
S'holders Litig., 2010 WL 2291842, at *15 (Del. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:41 am
If not, a little background is in order. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
I never took an IP class in law school, and know very little about the subject. [read post]
2 May 2024, 9:01 pm
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Jorge Alcarez, et al. v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 4:00 am
Holder, involving an earlier challenge to the Voting Rights Act. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1220 (2021); see, Bernard Bell, A Little Blue Birdie Told Me: Knight First Amendment Institute v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 8:37 am
Perhaps because the Laken Riley Act has little chance of passing the Senate or becoming law, there has been little public analysis of its details, although its initial passage by the House was covered by major media such as the New York Times and CNN . [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 7:28 pm
-NAP exhibits all of the weaknesses and missed opportunities that has marked the NAP process for many developed states: it focuses on outward conduct and pays little attention to the human rights effects of economic activity within the United States; it is grounded in the prerogatives of executive command; it provides little assessment of the legal and remedial framework of the United States and its relationship to managing business conduct; and most regrettably, so focused on the… [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:58 am
Holder v. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm
At this point, little can be [read post]
14 Mar 2024, 6:41 pm
Holder (U.S. 2009). [read post]
9 Mar 2024, 6:30 am
Holder.) [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 pm
" (NSBA v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 12:47 pm
Concluding that it4 TRUMP v. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 2:53 pm
In Hameed v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 11:29 am
”); and Rotkiske v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
Then, in Lexmark v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:48 pm
There was a tension in yesterday's oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
For present purposes, however, the important point to understand is that Trump’s primary merits argument, to which he devotes the first 13 pages of the Argument section of his brief (pp. 20-33), concerns only the second, middle “Officials Clause,” which identifies the current and former office-holders to whom Section 3 potentially applies, rather than the government positions that an insurrectionist or rebel is ineligible to occupy going forward. [read post]
