Search for: "State of Georgia v. United States" Results 301 - 320 of 2,848
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2014, 1:06 pm by Diane Marie Amann
As an amicus, the United States argued that such intent might be implicit in the bilateral investment treaty at issue. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 3:51 am by SHG
Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 671 (1983), the Supreme Court of the United States stated that the due process and equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibit ‘‘punishing a person for his poverty. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
Georgia (1972) on the grounds that it was capricious and discriminatory, followed four years later by restoring it in Gregg v. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 11:01 am by Terry Lenamon
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Beach Renourishment v. [read post]
21 Jul 2012, 2:52 am by SHG
While the Supreme Court held that a state could not put a retarded person to death in Atkins v. [read post]
27 Feb 2025, 3:15 am by Sasha Volokh
See Reed, 576 U.S. at 163; AAPC, 591 U.S. at 618 (plurality opinion); United States v. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 10:59 am by Federalist Society
In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction over the petitioner. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 10:59 am by Federalist Society
In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction over the petitioner. [read post]
10 May 2010, 11:23 pm by Orin Kerr
No, said the Third Circuit in United States v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 8:32 am
It has been nearly seven months since an execution in the United States, the longest pause in a quarter-century. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 3:00 pm
United States (06-1164), asking whether the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations is jurisdictional (and may thus not be waived by the parties), and in Federal Express v. [read post]