Search for: "Stevens v. United States Department Of Justice" Results 361 - 380 of 712
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2016, 1:32 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
United States, 522 F.3d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 2008); see United States v. [read post]
15 Jul 2012, 12:15 pm by Guest Blogger
Announcing the Court’s judgment, Justice Stevens balanced the state’s interests against the limitations imposed by Indiana and found them constitutional. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 4:00 pm
Justice David Souter, writing the majority opinion for the United States Supreme Court, upheld Exxon's liability for the incident, but found the $2.5 billion excessive. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 9:01 pm by Ronald D. Rotunda
” In his dissent in United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 4:44 am by Edith Roberts
Department of Defense, which asks whether challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of the “waters of the United States” must be brought in federal district court or in a federal court of appeals, observing that the “Supreme Court has likely stepped in to resolve this dispute because it is a waste of judicial resources for federal courts of appeals to decide whether WOTUS regulations are lawful if they don’t have the… [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 7:17 am by Anna Christensen
Adler notes that the Court’s 1990 decision in United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 4:12 am by Edith Roberts
This blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s opinion in Washington State Department of Licensing v. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:31 am by Amanda L. Tyler
On June 25, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated holding in Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 12:57 pm by Edward A. Fallone
Justice Stevens accepted the validity of these state interests as unquestionably legitimate. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:51 pm
Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 7:30 am by Marissa Miller
Finally, at the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr weighs in on the first question presented in United States v. [read post]