Search for: "Ross v. State" Results 461 - 480 of 1,802
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2020, 3:39 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly: Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that “[b]y the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Friday’s conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York” gun rights case that the court dismissed on Monday as moot, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 5:32 pm by CAFE
Code § 19 Presidential Succession Act of 1792 Presidential Succession Act of 1886 Congressional Research Service report on presidential succession, 6/29/05 Continuity of Government Commission succession report, 6/1/09 Jack Goldsmith, “A Presidential Succession Nightmare,” Lawfare, 3/25/20 BARR & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment  AG Barr’s Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, 4/8/20 DOJ spokesperson tweeting “expect… [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 3:55 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: At AlterNet, Bill Blum writes that in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 3:39 am by Edith Roberts
At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel discusses Comcast v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 5:05 am by SHG
What this meant is that colleges didn’t subject themselves to liability to the accuser by imposing a lesser remedy than expulsion, and that the circuit was emphasizing a return to the criteria stated by the Supreme Court in Davis v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 12:16 pm by Eric Goldman
In the afternoon roundtable, one participant claimed that Hassell v. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 6:00 am by Charlotte Butash
Though the committee cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 3:40 am by Edith Roberts
Gabriel Chin analyzes Tuesday’s oral argument in United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 3:02 pm by Amy Howe
He explained that the rationale underlying the general presumption that laws do not apply retroactively, outlined in Landgraf v. [read post]