Search for: "Branch v. White"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,412
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2007, 4:12 pm
" Congress also has the power to investigate the workings of the Executive branch simply to determine whether legislative amendments are necessary in order prevent or deter undesirable government practices, and perhaps even for the basic function of facilitating "the American people's ability to reconstruct and come to terms with their history," Nixon v. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 11:41 am
Shortly after Bolton’s statement, Trump retweeted an argument that, even if Bolton testifies, the “White House can assert executive privilege. [read post]
25 Jun 2007, 5:20 pm
Citing the Supreme Court's 1968 decision in Flast v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 7:52 am
White. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 11:27 am
The first type—an assertion of presidential communications privilege—represents the core of executive privilege that was first recognized in U.S. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 9:30 pm
Here's a taste:Reva Siegel (credit)Equal protection cases appeal to Brown v. [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 6:30 am
Breakstone, White & Gluck represented a passenger who survived the Green Line D branch crash in Newton on May 28, 2008. [read post]
14 Jun 2008, 4:19 pm
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision this week in Boumediene v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 8:56 am
” Allen v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 9:30 pm
The Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 10:00 pm
In Davis v Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the U.S. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 9:51 am
But here is the White House talking now: Ricci v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 4:16 pm
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) says the executive branch has grossly distorted the Patriot Act’s intent. [read post]
22 Dec 2021, 1:54 pm
Federal Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2021.html White Mountain Apache Tribe v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 12:10 pm
The deliberative process privilege may be asserted by the executive branch more generally, not just the President. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 3:00 am
United States v. [read post]
