Search for: "Powers v. Powers"
Results 4461 - 4480
of 55,703
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2013, 3:18 am
Rev. 1-34 (2012) Introduction: The Jones Act seaman has de facto power over whether a jury will hear his claim through his ability, under Panama Railroad v. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 9:03 am
Instead, it was always going to be a future Supreme Court that would have the burden — and the power — of determining what Bush v. [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 8:20 am
EPA is whether Congress actually delegated the power asserted by the agency, and that is a question courts must answer--and should answer without taking the sort of major-question-shortcut the Court took in WV v. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 10:35 am
By Dennis Crouch Kimble v. [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 3:52 am
At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at two “cases [that] will shed light on how far constitutional limitations protect against government power in immigration matters” —Hernandez v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 2:15 pm
We are skeptical that Heckler v. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 1:52 pm
Mazars USA, LLP, the Supreme Court stated that the subpoenas issued by Congress for Trump’s financial records posed separation of powers concerns, *** In Trump v. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 8:22 pm
Boies cited Romer v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 8:18 am
This is the alternative holding of United States v. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 1:55 pm
David NosalFacebook v. [read post]
2 Dec 2006, 11:03 am
So, although the federal courts generally have the power to say what the law "is," they lack the power to say that a law "isn't. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 7:37 am
But see New York v. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 8:26 am
Nevertheless, the power of the wall metaphor endures. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 2:22 pm
In the case of Hughes v. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 12:00 pm
Gore than Williams v. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm
The NYTimes Editorial Board appears to be living is some fantasy world about American power over Russia in the Caucasus. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 9:22 am
I am now writing up a paper on Currin v. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 2:29 pm
As the Court in Terry v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 5:20 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] unanimously Tuesday in Merit Management Group v. [read post]
