Search for: "Thomas Campbell" Results 221 - 240 of 628
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by Amy Starnes
Bunt, Longview Bruce Stuart Campbell, Fort Worth Brian Heath Crockett, Houston Misty Lea Cunningham, Denton Richard William Espey, San Antonio John Blaise Gsanger, Corpus Christi William Wade Hoke, Houston Lannie Todd Kelly, Austin Wade D. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by Amy Starnes
Bunt, Longview Bruce Stuart Campbell, Fort Worth Brian Heath Crockett, Houston Misty Lea Cunningham, Denton Richard William Espey, San Antonio John Blaise Gsanger, Corpus Christi William Wade Hoke, Houston Lannie Todd Kelly, Austin Wade D. [read post]
12 Mar 2016, 1:23 pm by Bill Otis
 The class consists of people like Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Tom Cotton, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Heather MacDonald and anyone else who didn't have a poster of Che Guevara hanging in his or her dorm room. [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 1:55 pm by Alyson Carney
The teams represented the Petitioner United States and the Respondent Police Officer Billy Roy Campbell. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
As already mentioned, on the same day Lord Thomas CJ and Nicola Davies J gave judgment on remedy in the case of HM Attorney-General v Conde Nast Publications Ltd. [read post]
6 Feb 2016, 7:29 am by Alex R. McQuade
Cody flagged General John Campbell’s testimony before the House Armed Service Committee. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 1:41 pm by Elina Saxena, Cody M. Poplin
’s 2016 goals in the country, General Campbell urged policymakers to exercise flexibility in supporting U.S. efforts in the country as terrorism and instability pose remaining threats. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 9:39 pm by Kevin LaCroix
When that day comes and the issue the Court reserved in the Campbell-Ewald case is ripe for decision, the outcome could well be different; there are at least four votes that would favor a finding of mootness (that is, the three dissenters and Justice Thomas, who concurred in the judgment of the majority but not in the majority opinion). [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 3:26 pm by Lisa Milam-Perez
Citing basic principles of contract law (a rationale that Justice Thomas, concurring, would eschew in favor of a “common-law history of tenders” approach) the majority reasoned that once the defendant’s offer was rejected, the offer had “no continuing efficacy. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 10:37 am by Andrew Trask
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment, and filed his own concurrence. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 6:11 am by Joy Waltemath
Citing basic principles of contract law (an approach that Justice Thomas, concurring, would eschew in favor of a “common-law history of tenders” approach) the majority reasoned that once the defendant’s offer was rejected, the offer had no continuing efficacy. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 9:40 am by Ronald Mann
Because the Campbell-Ewald did not do that here, Thomas agreed with the Court that the case is not moot. [read post]