Search for: "Amendments To Rules Regulating the Bar"
Results 201 - 220
of 4,886
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm
” The Colorado Court did nothing of the sort—nor would it ever deign to suggest that Section 3 bars anyone from running for President. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
Colorado is not taking any steps to "enforce" Section 3's disqualification rule. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:35 am
His opponents counter that Section 3 is not unique in barring holding office instead of running for it. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 9:59 am
A Colorado district court denied an attempt to bar President Trump from the election, but on appeal the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a majority opinion on Dec. 19, 2023, that Section 3 applied to Trump’s actions on January 6, and that Trump could not run in the state’s upcoming primary election under the 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
In one of my previous posts, I explained why it's unlikely that a majority of the Justices will hold that the Fourteenth Amendment bars Donald Trump from holding federal office. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 4:51 am
Access Now reports the Bombay High Court issued a split verdict on the validity of the 2023 fact-checking amendment to the IT Rules, 2021. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 1:14 pm
” In a ruling on Dec. 19, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is ineligible to be president under Section 3, and it barred the Colorado secretary of state, Jena Griswold, from listing him on the primary ballot. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
But the rules on MPs’ travel could be about to change. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 10:05 am
The immigration statutes and regulations give our clients certain rights. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
If the court rules in Jarkesy’s favor on his Seventh Amendment claim, the SEC may be required to bring certain civil penalty actions for securities violations in federal court. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
I dissent from the Commission’s denial of a petition to amend Rule 202.5(e), our so-called gag rule.[1] This de facto rule follows from the Commission’s enforcement of its policy, adopted in 1972, that it will not “permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 8:38 am
Cameron, the Biden administration and Tennessee and Kentucky families ask the justices to grant review and reverse the 6th Circuit’s ruling. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 4:48 pm
Which platforms do these laws actually regulate? [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 7:34 am
FINRA Rule 3240 – Borrowing from Customers FINRA, the regulator who over sees brokers and brokerage firms, has rules in place to protect investors. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 4:33 pm
A case which clarified the concept of non-material damage under Article 82 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the rules governing burden of proof under the GDPR. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
Besides private offerings under section 4(a)(2) and its safe harbor, rule 506(b), there are at least five other categories of exemptions: (1) rule 506(c) under the Securities Act; (2) rule 504 under the Securities Act; (3) Regulation A, including tier 1 and tier 2; (4) Regulation Crowdfunding; and (5) the intrastate exemptions under section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act and rules 147 and 147A. [read post]
20 Jan 2024, 1:18 pm
Watts Regulator Co. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 3:00 am
Twitter, now known as X, argued it had a First Amendment right to alert Trump, who might then fight the disclosure himself. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 7:56 am
CRA resolutions do not formally amend the underlying statute, yet of course they do so to the extent of ruling out a category of future regulations. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 11:33 am
Long Live the Exclusionary Rule., 30 Virginia Journal of Policy & the Law 116 (2023) My legal training was the liberal kind, and I started this paper with a vague goal of mounting a spirited defense of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule against the incursions of the modern Supreme Court. [read post]
