Search for: "NIXON v. JONES" Results 21 - 40 of 118
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2013, 12:30 am by Rumpole
 Legally, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 6:42 pm by Brian Shiffrin
One might think that such a concession is effectively no different than a guilty plea, and the decision whether to plead guilty is fundamental one for the defendant and not counsel (Jones v Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 [1983]; People v White, 73 NY2d 468 [1989]). [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 9:13 pm by Anthony Gaughan
Six decades later, in the case of United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 8:36 pm by Garrett West
  The majority opinion carefully applies the two relevant Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity, see Nixon v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 5:30 am by Gyi Tsakalakis
v=QX3qV-… — Nixon Peabody LLP (@NixonPeabodyLLP) May 2, 2012 As you can see, somewhat better engagement. [read post]
31 Aug 2016, 6:57 am
State, 469 N.E.2d 1153, 1157 (Indiana Supreme Court 1984) (referencing Nixon v. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:00 am by Harry Litman
Nixon (the president must provide documentary evidence in response to a subpoena) and Clinton v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 5:31 pm by Guest Blogger
As I also indicated in the housing discussion, I don’t think TCRR adequately explains the willingness of the Supreme Court to decide Jones v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 5:31 pm by Guest Blogger
As I also indicated in the housing discussion, I don’t think TCRR adequately explains the willingness of the Supreme Court to decide Jones v. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 10:13 am by Quinta Jurecic
Trump’s lawyers have argued in the Kentucky case that he is immune from suit under Nixon v. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 9:31 pm
Court" and then published this analysis: REST BREAK AND MEAL PERIOD CLAIMS AFTER MURPHY V. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Walter Dellinger
Richard Nixon was so named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. [read post]