Search for: "U.S. v. Nixon"
Results 41 - 60
of 801
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2007, 4:45 am
Nixon, 2007 U.S. [read post]
21 May 2016, 1:01 am
Nixon (418 U.S. 683, 1974), holding (in the matter resulting from the Watergate scandal) that no person, not even the president of the United States, can be completely above the law, nor use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is “demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 2:48 am
In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 4:39 am
Nixon v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 6:08 am
To the contrary, Nixon v. [read post]
7 Dec 2008, 4:21 pm
Hattip: Law.ComPS Thanks to the Nixon Library for a link to the tape and to Findlaw for the Miller case, and LII for the link to Bush v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm
(See Butz v. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 5:01 am
He argues that Clinton v. [read post]
6 May 2018, 6:52 am
The potential controversy over the special counsel issuing a grand-jury subpoena for President Trump offers a nice illustration of judicial departmentalism, outside my usual focus of constitutional litigation. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 5:03 am
Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); FED. [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 8:56 am
Ferro, 2007 U.S. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 3:27 pm
The conviction was later upheld in United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 9:00 am
Nixon case, or Registered Sex Offenders v. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 3:05 pm
v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 8:00 am
Thanks to fellow listserv member Derek Brett and the FOIA blog for covering U.S. [read post]
27 Sep 2022, 1:09 pm
Supreme Court decision, Sierra Club v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 8:02 pm
The common law presumes a right of access to judicial records, see Nixon v. [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 11:58 pm
See Nixon v. [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 6:09 am
Nixon of Byrne & Nixon LLP, said at the hearing that Liang was the first person to accept responsibility for what happened and that he had cooperated with prosecutors and agreed to testify against another VW executive, Oliver Schmidt, if Schmidt’s case had gone to trial, according to the observer. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 5:03 am
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution prohibits “Bill[s] of Attainder,” laws that, under Supreme Court precedent, “legislatively determine[] guilt and inflict[] punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial” (Nixon v. [read post]
