Search for: "United States v. Davis" Results 1 - 20 of 3,012
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Feb 2024, 2:01 pm by Melody McDonald Lanier
Kentucky decision.Heiskell – who started a law practice in Fort Worth in 1984 after working as an Assistant United States Attorney in Dallas – recalled how people were often surprised when they first met him; They they assumed he was white because of his German last name. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am by Phil Dixon
Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:51 am by Scott Bomboy
“Maybe put most boldly, I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 11:37 am by Josh Blackman
Justice Gorsuch was the most interested questioner on whether the President was an "Officer of the United States. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
This Note explores the evolution of the law on slavery and race in the United States prior to the Civil War, focusing on Maine and the political pressures surrounding the SJC at that time. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
  The short version is that it’s a stone-cold loser, not least because it would have absurd ramifications (such as that it would mean Jefferson Davis would’ve been disqualified from serving in virtually any federal or state office except the presidency and vice-presidency, and that the Foreign Emoluments Clause wouldn’t prohibit the President, Vice-President, and members of Congress from accepting titles, offices, gifts or emoluments from… [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
  Scalia, J., thought Presidents were "officers of the United States" (Lawfare). [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 1:14 pm by Amy Howe
Specifically, it concluded, the presidency is not an “office … under the United States,” and the president is not an “officer of the United States. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 4:46 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The reason, quite simply, is that these transactions did not result in a liquidation, in whole or in part, of the camp business”]; and Dukas v Davis Aircraft Prods. [read post]