Search for: "Read v. People"
Results 4041 - 4060
of 21,650
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Dec 2017, 7:46 pm
TetraTech v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 3:22 pm
It was argued on behalf of Ms Kaczmarek that although she clearly was not eligible under domestic legislation, she was entitled to income support relying on Articles 12 and 18 of the EU Treaty, when read in conjunction with part of Trojani v Centre Public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (Case C-456/02) [2004] ECR I-7573. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 9:06 pm
Even after the Court’s twisted opinion in Supreme Beef v. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 11:14 am
United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (commerce power could be used to apply an anti-discrimination statute to an establishment that served people in interstate travel and that could affect national policy); Katzenbach v. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 8:19 am
Return Mail, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 12:36 am
The European Court of Human Rights in the decision Bayev and others v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 4:44 pm
Kind of strange in a system designed to promote public disclosure of information that writers would limit presentation of helpful information and that (targeted potential) readers would avoid reading the stuff anyway (eg, all the IT people who avoid reading patents). [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 12:31 am
Chester West and Chester Council v. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 1:53 pm
The court found that most people reading those words would conclude that they had replacement value insurance, It held, citing the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Fine's Flowers Ltd. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 2:53 am
I talked about this when Cook v. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 9:46 pm
(Orin Kerr) I’ve blogged a lot about the Ninth Circuit’s en banc case in United States v. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 2:53 am
I talked about this when Cook v. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 2:53 am
I talked about this when Cook v. [read post]
2 Jul 2022, 11:23 pm
Justice Sotomayor's dissent contends that Gorsuch read Lee v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
This claim is, of course, deeply counterintuitive, and it would be very awkward, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to explain to the American people that Section 3 doesn’t apply to someone who’s been President because although that person held an “office,” it wasn’t an office “of the United States. [read post]
31 May 2023, 8:09 pm
S. 573 (1986); and Baldwin v. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 11:46 am
And after reading about the recent decision by the Second Circuit in Cammeby’s v. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 11:46 am
And after reading about the recent decision by the Second Circuit in Cammeby’s v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 5:18 am
State, supra.You can, if you are interested, read more about the facts and issues in the case in the news stories you can find here and here. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 11:16 am
Citizens United wasn’t a victory (or a defeat) for the Constitution — it was just a well-placed right hook in the long battle of campaign finance reform v. rich people and institutions doing whatever they want. [read post]
