Search for: "State v. Mark A. Miller"
Results 201 - 220
of 774
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2018, 4:24 am
In an op-ed at TC Palm, Mark Miller considers how the topic of stare decisis, or adherence to precedent, may come up during the confirmation, noting that “while stare decisis is a vital legal principle, the justices of the Supreme Court have never considered it a non-negotiable command. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 4:17 am
” Additional commentary comes from Mark Miller in an op-ed for The Hill, Jessica Prol Smith at The Federalist, Kevin Theriot at The Federalist, Elissa Graves in an op-ed for Fox News, and Michael Farris in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 10:25 am
This marks his approach as cosmopolitan but also contentious. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 3:00 am
This effectively reverses State v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 9:19 am
Litigants have had fair notice since at least United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 10:17 am
By the Kean Miller State and Local Tax Team On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in South Dakota v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 12:47 pm
The case, Apple v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm
, 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002)(quoting Miller v. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 12:16 pm
The early dismissal would be final as to that claim, see United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 4:11 am
” In an op-ed for The Hill, Mark Miller takes a similar view, maintaining that “this case is less about Gundy than it is about the Supreme Court reining in the regulatory state run amok, and requiring Congress to get back to doing its job. [read post]
3 Jun 2018, 10:25 am
Miller. [read post]
18 May 2018, 12:54 pm
Additional Resources: Miller v. [read post]
18 May 2018, 12:54 pm
Additional Resources: Miller v. [read post]
18 May 2018, 10:33 am
The obscenity standard deeply split the court throughout the 1960s until the court settled on a rule in 1973 in Miller v. [read post]
4 May 2018, 3:24 pm
. *** Case Background In Miller v. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 4:08 am
” In an op-ed for The Hill, Mark Miller suggests that “[i]f the tenor of Wednesday’s oral argument is any guide, then the waiver and review process — not included within the original, and much less detailed, travel ban — could lead to a successful outcome at the high court for the president’s side. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 3:30 am
The defense made several additional arguments for the abatement, relying upon the factors in United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 4:27 am
In an op-ed for The Hill, Mark Miller urges court-watchers to “focus on the deeper legal questions involved, rather than obsessing over the superficial politics and personalities. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 8:41 am
The court invokedthe “hired to invent” doctrine of United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2018, 7:30 am
Scott Harman summarized the proceedings in Doe v. [read post]
