Search for: "Light v. United States" Results 321 - 340 of 12,862
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Nov 2023, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
Whenever I teach the federalism portion of my first-year constitutional law course, at least one cynical (but clever) student observes that the juxtaposition between United States v. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 6:08 pm by Guest Author
At the same time, critics of the administrative state have called into question authority of administrative agencies to adjudicate claims in light of Article III’s command that “[t]he judicial power of the United States shall be vested” in courts. [read post]
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced earlier this month a new policy which aims to encourage organisations to voluntarily self-disclose any misconduct uncovered during the process of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). [read post]
21 Nov 2023, 4:23 am by centerforartlaw
I needed to prepare to work on the first case of a foreign country suing in the United States to recover cultural property. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 10:37 am by JURIST Staff
Furthermore, it was held in Davis v United States (8th Cir. 1917) that a public trial is broadly defined as a trial at which the public is free to attend. [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 2:37 am by David Pocklington
The biggest legal news of the week was almost certainly the judgment of the Supreme Court in R (AAA (Syria) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, in which the Court held unanimously that the Secretary of State’s policy of sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 1:07 am by Frank Cranmer
The biggest legal news of the week was almost certainly the judgment of the Supreme Court in R (AAA (Syria) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, in which the Court held unanimously that the Secretary of State’s policy of sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. [read post]
18 Nov 2023, 4:00 am by jonathanturley
” In her 102-page ruling, Wallace declared that “[a]fter considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States’ did not include the President of the United States. [read post]