Search for: "Does v. United States of America" Results 461 - 480 of 4,625
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
”[10] It determined that, while the federal government is obligated to implement emissions reduction targets, this obligation does not exist at the state-level. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 5:01 am by Aaron R. Cooper
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 12:28 pm by The Petrie-Flom Center Staff
Carroll, and Bayla Ostrach Health law and policy in the United States are, in many senses, driven by a desire to control. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 3:55 pm by Eugene Volokh
But the state courts' denial of interim relief constitutes a final order under National Socialist Party of America v. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
”  She bases her skepticism in part on her justifiably prize-winning work on the history of racial relations in America. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 7:23 pm by John Floyd
  Qualified Immunity   In 1989, the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 1:12 pm
  Subsequently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, noting that the CDA does not contain a definition of “user,” turned to the plain meaning of the word. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
It is widely accepted that, consistent with the Dormant Commerce Clause, a firm doing multistate business must bear the cost of discovering and complying with state laws—tort laws, tax laws, franchise laws, health laws, privacy laws, and much more—everywhere it does business.[21] People and firms operating in "real space" must take steps to learn and comply with state law in places they visit or do business, or must avoid visiting or doing business in… [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
While the former course is undoubtedly preferable, past events in the United States and beyond make it crystal clear that both are possible. [read post]
  The Executive Order endorsed this approach, noting that “this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions whose previous consummation was in violation of the [antitrust laws]. [read post]