Search for: "People v. Schwartz" Results 261 - 280 of 352
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2016, 11:58 am by Elina Saxena
Reuters writes that “differences over the agenda had made it difficult for the two sides to start real negotiations to end the 13-month war that has killed more than 6,200 people, wounded more than 35,000 and displaced more than 2.5 million people. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 2:29 pm by Randy E. Barnett
(2021) Donald Drakeman, The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory: Why We Need the Framers (2021) Jamal Greene, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights is Tearing America Apart (2021) David Schwartz, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 12:17 pm by Elina Saxena, Cody M. Poplin
On Lawfare, Yishai Schwartz discussed the legal issues at play in the potential violation. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 1:18 am
So, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Monday in Astrue v. [read post]
7 Nov 2015, 5:47 am by Elina Saxena
" Adam Klein looked at the issues at play in Spokeo v. [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  Or progressives might employ what Tara Leigh Grove calls “flexible textualism” to insist that the state attend to the functional preconditions for the realization of enumerated rights, as when the plaintiffs in San Antonio Independent School District v. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 2:04 pm by Helen Klein Murillo
Among preliminary matters, Michael Schwartz, counsel for Walid Bin’Attash, is withdrawing from the case. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 11:11 am by Guest Blogger
  Like Joseph Story in his 1842 decision in Prigg v. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
I'm the primary presenter on three topics: the overruling of Chevron deference in the Loper Bright case (plus a comment on the Corner Post case); the Second Amendment ruling in Rahimi and the statutory ruling on bump stocks in Garland v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 8:49 am by Dave Maass
Second, the claims are ineligible for patent protection under the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice v. [read post]