Search for: "Clemente v. United States"
Results 261 - 280
of 459
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2012, 9:41 am
The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and Chicago 2016 v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 9:41 am
The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and Chicago 2016 v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 9:41 am
The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and Chicago 2016 v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 9:41 am
The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and Chicago 2016 v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 3:25 am
In New York v. [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 10:44 am
(The Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in the Doe v. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
Article V not only imposes supermajority requirements but imposes them at two levels – Congress and state legislatures (or conventions) – both of which must be satisfied. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:25 am
United States District Court, W.D. [read post]
10 Mar 2024, 12:39 pm
Mr Clemente was debarred for procedural failings. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 8:25 pm
Want to amaze your friends with your ability to predict the outcome of cases argued in the United States Supreme Court? [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 1:30 pm
At the end of the argument in Arizona v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 12:00 pm
United States, and Florida v. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 9:29 am
The United States files a brief that technically supports neither party, but in practical effect seems to provide considerable benefit to POM. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 10:37 am
No jurisdiction in the United States has a law like New York City's. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 1:30 pm
United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). [read post]
14 Dec 2008, 9:40 pm
United States v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 9:27 am
(At ACS blog, Jeffrey Clements disputes Citizens United’s criticism of the Kagan nomination.) [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 4:43 pm
Back in January, in the case of United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 6:24 am
United States, a sentencing case that was argued on Monday. [read post]
16 May 2023, 8:21 am
For example, in the securities law context, a Second Circuit panel upheld the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest, but only after finding that a private plaintiff—not the state plaintiffs—had Article III standing (See, XY Planning Network, LLC v. [read post]
