Search for: "Major Mills v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 600
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2016, 8:56 am
While yesterday’s majority said it was acting well within the settled framework of a leading 1989 retroactivity decision, Teague v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 9:20 am
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; John V. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 9:20 am
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; John V. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 5:40 am
As many readers know, since the Supreme Court expressly used the phrase “major questions doctrine” for the first time in West Virginia v. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 6:11 am
Given this experience, I read Martinelli v. [read post]
9 May 2021, 9:08 pm
In the hands of Trump’s Justice Department, the major questions doctrine became a weapon that could be wielded as a broadside attack on the administrative state. [read post]
28 May 2014, 7:37 am
Finally, the state argued that the Court should revisit its holding in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 9:36 pm
For example, the brief ignores the fact that Medicaid has always contained mandatory elements; these mandatory elements were one of the major defining features of the program as it was amended from Kerr-Mills, its predecessor program. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 10:35 pm
Mills. [read post]
25 Aug 2007, 7:37 pm
State v. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 10:15 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 7:02 am
” In this regard, it is interesting to note that the leading precedent the government relies on is United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
The majority opinion in Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages v. [read post]
27 Aug 2021, 9:08 am
Because (and only because) of the allegedly false certification, the Brazilian mills can sell their wood in the United States at a far lower price point, causing major losses. [read post]
6 Nov 2012, 6:14 am
Mills, 664 F.2d 600, 608 (6th Cir. 1981); Smith v. [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 2:37 pm
Ferguson (Major Crimes Act)United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 1:07 pm
BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 12:00 pm
Oklahoma (Indian Major Crimes Act) Federal Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2019.htmlBay Mills Indian Community v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 7:02 am
§§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4)(“the RFRA”).[6] (Even though the RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments, City of Boerne v. [read post]
