Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 2161 - 2180
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2016, 1:18 am
Malta; Editions Plon v. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 3:35 pm
” The Supreme Court in Humanitarian Law Project v. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 1:32 pm
At step one, we ask "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 12:23 am
Dissenting again in Lee v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 1:25 pm
” Summing up the months following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling in Schrems v. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 6:32 am
Additionally, Morrison’s explanation of the “focus” test is far more detailed and analytically precise than the Kiobel majority’s one-sentence announcement of the “touch and concern” standard. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 8:01 am
I’m not sure what precisely the court’s standards are for when something gets memorandum treatment, but both of these involved novel and interesting issues, and indeed one ruling drew a dissent. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 4:00 am
Fourth, that this does not require the creation of new categories of workers, or new labels – in fact we can use any term we wish as long as we use it sensibly, i.e. purposively. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 1:44 pm
Well, first, the standard — enunciated for the first time in DC Comics v. [read post]
31 Jan 2016, 8:40 am
Article 5 is a very useful provision. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 9:26 am
Federal courts use the well-known Chevron[1]standard, analyzing first whether Congress has “directly spoken to the precise question at issue”; if it has, the court must give effect to that Congressional intent. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 10:01 am
’“ (People v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 4:39 am
As said by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 4:39 am
As said by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 4:30 pm
That is precisely what happened here. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 12:11 pm
See, e.g., Cohen v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 7:07 am
On January 11, 2016, the Fourth Circuit decided Armstrong v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 7:07 am
On January 11, 2016, the Fourth Circuit decided Armstrong v. [read post]
23 Jan 2016, 10:50 am
The basic framework includes the Constitution’s text, and its choice of legal norms-- that is, rules, standards, principles and silences. [read post]
