Search for: "Graves v. Powers"
Results 201 - 220
of 1,122
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2020, 5:54 am
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Seila Law v. [read post]
26 Feb 2017, 9:01 pm
Knauff v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 10:53 am
I read with interest the transcript from yesterday’s oral argument in Minneci v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 1:59 am
Disclosure of the mere fact of this past relationship which, on any view, was not entirely secret, does not carry with it particularly grave adverse consequences. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 2:30 pm
From today's opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari in ACLU v. [read post]
28 May 2017, 8:30 am
Specifically, citing McCreary County v. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 9:18 am
Agency v. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 12:05 pm
Sure, there's a power differential when a member of the judiciary calls out an attorney in a published opinion. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 4:50 pm
Argueta v. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 12:28 am
In Mayfield v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 4:06 am
This is partly the question in Kiobel v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 1:13 pm
One of the powers the Act gave to the Supreme Court, writs of mandamus, was the subject of the famous Supreme Court case, Marbury v. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 4:20 pm
Rumsfeld v. [read post]
27 Jan 2023, 12:32 pm
In R v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 8:34 am
The three-judge based their decision on a 1976 US Supreme Court ruling in Federal Energy Administration v. [read post]
27 Aug 2011, 11:58 pm
In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been… [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 6:28 am
Kutler’s entry on New York Times Co. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 6:49 am
Holmes probably believed what he wrote in Abrams, just as he believed what her wrote in Schenck v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 7:23 am
For the Supreme Court to overrule Auer in this setting would raise grave questions about the status of Bell Aerospace and Chenery II. [read post]
