Search for: "Martin by and Through Martin v. United States" Results 421 - 440 of 884
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2022, 11:00 am by Sandy Levinson
  But might So might one describe pre-2022 MLB as a form of “federalism” in which constituent units, each with their own measure of “sovereignty” were entitled to make their own rules, at least up to a point? [read post]
20 Jul 2013, 10:39 am by Larry Catá Backer
This paper considers societal constitutionalism in its dynamic element—as a system structures constant adjustment among the constituting elements of a governance unit (whether state, corporation, religion, etc.) [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm by Bexis
  That has the advantage of creating a direct circuit split over the extent of PMA preemption, and direct circuit splits are one thing upon which successful United States Supreme Court appeals are based.But on TwIqbal, what Bausch is conceptually worse than just disagreeing with a decision we like. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm by Josh Blackman
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
The physician acts as an "informed intermediary" between the manufacturer and the patient; and, thus, the manufacturer's duty to caution against a drug's side effects is fulfilled by giving adequate warning through the prescribing physician, not directly to the patient.Martin v. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 2:56 pm by INFORRM
The High Court has ruled that security and intelligence services must obtain “prior independent authorisation” to access individuals’ communication data from telecommunications companies (Liberty v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 1630 (Admin)). [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 6:15 am by Shahid Buttar
Martin Luther King, Jr. often lionize the civil rights era, rightfully focusing on its achievements. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 12:23 am
Like it or not, that judgment says, quite plainly, that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. [read post]