Search for: "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. United States" Results 181 - 200 of 334
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Aug 2010, 1:07 pm by James R. Marsh
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied relief in an order entered January 8, 2009.[7] The Court was forced to reconsider its ruling when, on January 26, 2009, the United States Attorney’s Office announced that it had charged Judge Ciavarella and his mentor, Judge Michael T. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 4:20 am
This exception was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 8:47 am by Matt Cooper
Pennsylvania: https://electioncases.osu.edu/case/kelly-v-commonwealth/ From the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision: “[W]e hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 9:20 am by Mark Ashton
 But, state and local units of government are not subject to federal regulation in this area. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 9:20 am by Mark Ashton
 But, state and local units of government are not subject to federal regulation in this area. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
Except, on Friday, Judge Cathy Bissoon from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded EEOC v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 2:47 pm by Eugene Volokh
From last week’s Pennsylvania trial court decision in Commonwealth v. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 9:00 am
All persons charged with crimes are entitled to the protections afforded by the United States Constitution. [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 2:55 am by Kevin Kaufman
Some of these activities spill over into the United States, and just in 2020, three men were arrested in Texas transporting illicit cigarettes. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 7:53 am by Eric Goldman
Mar. 30, 2018) (unpublished opinion)] Pennsylvania [Commonwealth v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 8:12 am by Mark Ashton
This is itself an interesting question in a world where the General Assembly has stated that marriage can only involve a man and woman but the federal court has ruled that this legal distinction is not legally permissible under the United State Constitution. [read post]