Search for: "OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER v" Results 261 - 280 of 11,815
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
The case is the most significant elections matter the justices have been forced to confront since the Bush v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am by Eugene Volokh
"[12] Meanwhile, a New Hampshire newspaper blamed "[t]raitors in the old lady's Cabinet" for "supply[ing] the conspirators with the means of insurrection from the public arsenals," such that "General Scott [was] hampered in his measures to defend the capital. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 6:25 pm by Marty Lederman
     That the presidency is not an “office, civil or military, under the United States” for purposes of the first, “Positions” Clause of Section 3. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
  (And the fact that Trump’s counsel Jonathan Mitchell doesn’t make any effort to defend this argument should tell you something about its prospects.) [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:12 am by Jonathan H. Adler
But at all cost, since the Trump administration took office and now through the Biden administration, the Department of Justice's mission has been, as stated by its own lawyers, "to kill Juliana v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
The Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 1:37 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
The work’s existence benefits the public. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 3:24 pm by Eugene Volokh
South Dakota (D.S.D. 2011) ("subsequent decisions by the United States Supreme Court expressly cast doubt on the [ ] validity of the special public-interest doctrine" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Fujii v. [read post]