Search for: "Williams v. Nixon" Results 41 - 60 of 278
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Aug 2020, 2:45 am by NCC Staff
On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 6:00 am by Josh Blackman
“Obstruction of Justice” and Presidents Nixon and Clinton Professor Charles L. [read post]
10 Oct 2019, 6:52 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Circuit because this holding is precisely what was repudiated by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 5:01 am by Jonathan Shaub
But, in an often-overshadowed second privilege case involving Nixon, Nixon v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 5:19 pm by JB
William Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon) and Byron White (appointed by Kennedy) are the only dissenters. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 2:45 am by NCC Staff
In late July 1974, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. [read post]
23 May 2017, 9:30 am by Josh Blackman
” After Richardson resigned, Nixon ordered Deputy Attorney General William D. [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 6:36 am
The President does (Nixon v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
For the Balkinization Symposium on  Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 4:57 am by Susan Brenner
She explained that to support this argument, TLO had submitted an affidavit of William Wiltse, an employee of TLO. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 3:27 pm by David Post
  On July 24, 1974 a unanimous Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes in (the aptly-named) US v. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 11:41 am by Sam Williams
The investigation famously came to a head when Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than follow President Nixon's order that they fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in the "Saturday Night Massacre. [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 5:01 am by Jonathan Shaub
The second period represents a time of flux for privilege as the executive branch wrestles with the fallout from Watergate and attempts to interpret and apply United States v. [read post]