Search for: "Clinton v. State"
Results 381 - 400
of 2,407
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2020, 8:04 am
Trump v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 7:14 am
Trump v. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 7:01 am
Similarly, in Clinton v. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 5:00 am
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires high-level officers of the United States to be appointed through nomination by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 4:37 am
State v. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 3:59 pm
Indeed, the firm filed at least two other election cases against the Secretary of State in that division (Gilby v. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 8:59 pm
The Second Circuit ruling in New York v. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 4:44 am
State v. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 3:49 am
District Court for the District of Columbia, Hoffa v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 1:49 pm
Today the 11th Circuit issued a per curiam decision on Kelvin Leon Jones, et al. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 9:01 pm
United States and Free Enterprise Fund v. [read post]
15 Feb 2020, 4:39 pm
Chatterjee v CBS, 6:19-CV-212-REW United States District Court, E.D. [read post]
15 Feb 2020, 10:06 am
(In Tennessee, the AG is appointed by the state Supreme Court.) [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 10:00 am
States were quick to pass new death penalty laws to address the concerns; the court upheld some of those statutes four years later in Gregg v. [read post]
8 Feb 2020, 9:27 am
In Baraban v. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 7:01 pm
State v. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 11:11 am
The 2008 Democratic presidential primary turned in very large part on the fact that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War and Barack Obama was on record against it. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 4:44 am
State v. [read post]
5 Feb 2020, 1:52 pm
But the ranks of federal court decisions with respect to what happens in the case of a conflict between executive privilege and Congress (as opposed to a conflict with the courts, as in US v. [read post]
5 Feb 2020, 7:47 am
At Law360 (registration required), Daniel Dalton argues that, should the justices decide Espinoza v. [read post]
