Search for: "Williams, Jr v. Davis"
Results 1 - 20
of 188
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm
For many business economists and legal academics, the purpose of any business organization is simply stated: to maximize profits. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
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 foreign… [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm
Brennan Jr. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 1:27 am
Ewald Jr. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 11:20 pm
Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law). [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
This paper is much narrower—Sunstein is really unpacking some of the conservative SCOTUS bloc’s internal debates about the MQD in Biden v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 9:01 pm
As the Supreme Court observed in Forsyth County v. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 10:51 am
William Powers Jr., ed. [read post]
8 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
After all, the first secessionists met in Hartford in 1814, and William Lloyd Garrison famously endorsed “no Union with slaveholders. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 11:44 am
Grinnell-Davis, University of Oklahoma School of Social Work Judge William A. [read post]
11 Sep 2022, 9:01 pm
Maryland, Martin v. [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 12:33 pm
Seated, from left to right: Justices Willis Van Devanter, Joseph McKenna, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, and Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and James C. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 5:01 am
See generally William P. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
[Editor’s Note: This post is based on a comment letter submitted to the U.S. [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 6:58 am
Davis, Jr., presiding, in favor of James H. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 6:13 pm
From Burghardt v. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 4:00 am
The recent amendments to the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp) and the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Colucci v Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 suggest that lawyers are required to screen for family violence to be able to competently comply with their statutory obligations. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 1:31 pm
The case is New Line Cinema v. [read post]
