Search for: "Bounds v. Smith"
Results 21 - 40
of 796
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
In one of my previous posts, I explained why it's unlikely that a majority of the Justices will hold that the Fourteenth Amendment bars Donald Trump from holding federal office. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
Moreover, this content-specific and permanent restraint on speech effectively shields the Commission’s allegations from criticism: as long as you live, you are bound not only to say nothing that the Commission believes “directly or indirectly” denies the complaint’s allegations, but you also must never say anything that even “create[s] the impression” of a denial.[23] Given the obvious First Amendment ramifications of the no-deny policy, it… [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
The Article VI Oaths Clause provides: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
In Smith v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 4:36 am
While no recorded dissent or explanation was given by the Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit Court cited the Supreme Court opinion in Glossip v. [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 4:44 am
Courtney Kube and Alexander Smith report for NBC News. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 9:41 am
The Supreme Court heard argument this morning in Smith v. [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 9:02 pm
In 1997, in Boerne v. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 3:49 pm
The Court found that it was bound by the Fifth Circuit's holding in McCorvey v. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:59 am
Private citizen Jack Smith lacks standing to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgement in United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 6:03 am
From Doe v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am
There, a judge held that chemical giant du Pont was bound by legal determinations made in three trials involving the discharge of acid into the Ohio River. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 9:01 pm
Smith, holding that religious actors are bound by neutral, generally applicable laws just like everyone else. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 8:51 am
Kelly v. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:16 pm
Through these cases the High Court elected not to follow the English approach (see Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd) which requires that another forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
Nance was bound to lose his case anyway, given the district court's statute-of-limitations ruling.) [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court vacated the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA in 2020 when—by a 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority—it decided Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:34 am
First, to determine whether a partnership formed, courts “must consider whether the parties expressly or implicitly intended to become partners” (Hammond v Smith, 151 AD3d 1896 [4th Dept 2017]). [read post]
1 Sep 2023, 1:32 am
If they proposed some Huawei v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 7:40 am
[1] Hamilton v. [read post]
