Search for: "Stevens v. Little"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,664
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Yahoo News – Ken Dilanian and Frank Thorp V (NBC News) | Published: 9/27/2023 U.S. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 8:00 am
Rossignol v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 3:25 pm
The case is Thaler v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 12:55 pm
But being a criminal had little to do with it…. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 6:22 pm
Dec. 6, 2022); see also Horwin v. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
It has provided virtually no guidance on what it means for a matter to present a “major question,” it has provided little guidance on what it means for a matter to present a “major question,” it has provided little guidance on the degree of statutory specificity necessary to provide agency authority over a major question . . . . [read post]
26 Jul 2023, 2:25 pm
No doubt they mean well and aren’t beholden to Access Copyright – but their opinions are so over the top and poorly informed that they have a very bad look:Kate Taylor, May 26, 2023 Hugh Stevens, July 15, 2023 Hugh Steven’s opinion piece conveniently follows up just two days later on the announcement by Access Copyright (“AC”) that it was downsizing and restructuring. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am
Or that the credibility of the technical effect is assessed at the priority or filing date (e.g., TGI Paris, October 6, 2009, RG n°07/16446, Teva v. [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 9:29 am
See, e.g., Smith v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 4:33 pm
Washington DC. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 8:56 pm
Ultimately, though Justice Thomas puts little weigh in liquidation. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 6:00 am
An ordinal function tells us that individual i prefers possible world X to possible world Y, but it doesn't tell us whether X is much better than Y or only a little better. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 8:15 pm
They’re big rules, rather than little ones. [read post]
30 May 2023, 10:15 am
The Duty to Respond to Public Comments In Perez v. [read post]
21 May 2023, 9:00 pm
The most straightforward way to understand his thinking is apparently that the pendency of the inevitable lawsuits would so roil the financial markets that the economy would be damaged in the meantime—AND that doing so would be worse than the alternatives.Again, he is right that there would be a political crisis, and the days, weeks, or months that the world would spend waiting for a resolution would make the 2000 Bush v. [read post]
18 May 2023, 9:01 pm
Last week, in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. [read post]
17 May 2023, 4:54 am
A First Amendment challenge to the law made it to the Supreme Court itself, which, in United States v. [read post]
6 May 2023, 2:57 pm
The recent release of Justice John Paul Stevens' papers have attracted new attention to the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 ruling in Kelo v. [read post]
4 May 2023, 9:51 pm
In my last post, I outlined some things I hoped to learn from Justice John Paul Stevens' papers about Kelo v. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 7:00 am
In Brown v. [read post]
