Search for: "State v. Powers"
Results 5661 - 5680
of 36,799
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2023, 11:00 am
And it is this power of the federal government to exclude as well as direct states and non-Indians when it comes to relations with tribes that has a long and well-established pedigree: it was the understanding embodied in the Constitution in the wake of the Articles, advocated for by Native peoples (as Greg Ablavsky and I have traced), and affirmed in the foundational Indian law case of Worcester v. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 8:46 am
(Lampi, LLC v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 3:00 am
See Republic of Ecuador v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 7:13 am
--Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitOpinion Date: 8/27/10Cite: Gross v. [read post]
28 Aug 2024, 4:28 pm
In Sokolovskiy v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 5:35 am
Judgment In this judgment, after setting out the background Tugendhat J considered submissions made as to his statement in his earlier judgment that “trial with a jury will generally be ordered as a matter of discretion, in particular where the state, or a public authority, is a defendant” [35] He accepted that, in the light of cases such as H v Ministry of Defence ([1991] QB 103) and Racz v Home Office ([1994] 2 AC 45) he should have omitted the word… [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 6:02 pm
Like most Americans, I believe Roe v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to avoid the complete overturning of Roe v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 5:15 am
Term Limits, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 1:12 pm
Kansas v. [read post]
28 Jan 2007, 7:26 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 7:40 pm
United States, 128 S. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 7:56 pm
V. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 3:59 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 2:14 pm
Yesterday in McKinney v Commissioner of the N. [read post]
3 Dec 2008, 8:06 pm
David Schwartz discusses Monday’s argument in Kansas v. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 6:08 am
And there are other pressures toward abstraction that apply in other cases, such as state standing after Massachusetts v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 1:25 pm
United States. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 6:40 am
State v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 8:59 pm
Not only was the reasoning circular but it was founded on the startling idea that states have the power to modify the scope of a constitutional concept (i.e., obscenity) and, therefore, to cut down constitutional rights. [read post]
