Search for: "Scalia v. United States"
Results 4241 - 4260
of 4,639
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2009, 2:02 pm
United States today. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 5:19 am
" United States v. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 8:57 am
Consider, for example, Thomas' view of the Commerce Clause that led to his concurring opinion in United States v Lopez. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 2:44 pm
Here's an example of a more succinct and effective issue statement, from a brief in the United States Supreme Court case Dusenberry v. [read post]
1 Feb 2009, 5:35 am
Justice Scalia's argument, recently advanced in Hudson v. [read post]
31 Jan 2009, 1:47 am
United States. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 8:15 am
Representing the United States as amicus curiae, Assistant to the Solicitor General Nicole A. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 12:41 pm
Stanford student JP Schnapper-Casteras discusses oral argument in Boyle v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 7:13 am
Stanford student Daniel Matro discusses last Wednesday’s oral argument in Corley v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 7:00 am
Locke v. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 8:04 am
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David H. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 7:30 am
United States, No. 08-5721. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 7:06 am
United States (08-5721), a sentencing guidelines case. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 5:00 am
In my FindLaw column appearing today, I discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in Herring v. [read post]
19 Jan 2009, 6:44 am
Of course, we could echo Justice Scalia's words about Bush v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 1:58 am
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing for the admissibility of evidence, even if said evidence was improperly seized. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 7:45 am
In Oregon v. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 7:03 am
United States (07-513), on whether courts must suppress evidence obtained following an arrest made only due to erroneous information provided by another law enforcement agency. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
Here's Herring v. [read post]
31 Dec 2008, 10:48 am
Justice Ginsburg immediately pointed out that "the position of the only representative of the United States" in the court below was in fact opposite to the one taken by Ms. [read post]
