Search for: "State v. House"
Results 5961 - 5980
of 28,800
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2013, 3:41 pm
In Miranda v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 12:02 pm
For example, in United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 11:51 am
The House bill will now have to be reconciled with the Senate version. [read post]
25 Sep 2018, 10:08 pm
In State v. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 9:47 am
Facebook v. [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 12:31 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 4:01 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 9:23 pm
Because while everything else in the Constitution can be amended by a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress followed by ratification by 3/4 of the States, the Constitution provides a special rule for equal representation in the Senate: "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:30 am
President Obama delivered a statement (full text) in the White House briefing room praising Souter's service on the court. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 10:39 am
Unfortunately, as a result of the United State Supreme Court's decision in the Riegel v. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 2:25 pm
Ancheta v. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 10:03 am
IPKat flagged a question this week from Neal Macrossan, the inventor behind the high-profile Aerotel v Telco Holdings case on software patenting (in essence, should Macrossan appeal to the House of Lords?). [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 3:55 am
Stitt and United States v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 1:00 pm
In House Bill 27, passed last September, dependents were also barred from receiving death benefits while incarcerated. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 7:04 am
In Epic Systems v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 9:50 am
The Cash v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 6:02 am
In 2005, the Supreme Court, in Granholm v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 11:49 am
The Third Circuit, in U.S. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 5:01 am
From United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2023, 4:28 am
One month after sending the Fourteenth Amendment to the states, the House of Representatives firmly rejected any constitutional distinction between the phrases “office under” and an “office of” as they were used in various constitutional provisions, including Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares persons holding “offices of the United States” are subject to disqualification from “offices under the United… [read post]
