Search for: "Citizens for Constitutional, et al. v. United States, et al."
Results 181 - 200
of 467
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2012, 2:49 pm
County of San Diego et al. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 6:13 am
Petitioners’ reply United States Steel Corp. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 7:36 am
In the third newly granted case, Bruesewitz, et al., v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 6:30 am
(The case is EPIC, et al. v. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 8:49 pm
Trump v. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 12:34 pm
The State of Arizona, et al., No. 10-1413). [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 9:28 am
The complaint includes two counts alleging violation of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights), which in relevant part provides: "Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State...subjects...any citizen of the United States...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the… [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 2:43 pm
Court H.R., Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1 July 2008, no. 58243/00, § 62 and 63; Rotaru v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 12:00 pm
Moreover, the citizens of Montana have a right to be constitutionally free of environmental harm that contravene the constitution. [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 1:31 pm
; Citizens United/WRtL (and other campaign finance cases); Shelby County; Parents Involved; Janus; Epic/Concepcion, et al.; etc. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 6:01 am
United States and Black, et al. [read post]
5 Jun 2006, 8:32 pm
In its landmark case Gideon v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm
The case is Horne, et al., v. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 1:01 am
Justice Anthony Kennedy In Boumediene et al. v. [read post]
17 May 2011, 8:02 am
Perry, et al. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 5:39 am
United States v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:45 pm
United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am
It is important to emphasize, therefore, just how unprecedented that challenge is—and the potentially profound impact it could have on countless federal spending programs if the Court were to embrace it.It has long been accepted, without a whisper of any constitutional doubt, that “[a]lthough participation in the Medicaid program is entirely optional, once a State elects to participate, it must comply with the requirements of the [Act],” Harris v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 8:18 am
Perry (the challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage) and United States v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Freed’s conduct could be attributed to the State only if he was “possessed of state authority” to post city updates and register citizen concerns. [read post]
