Search for: "Day v. United States"
Results 581 - 600
of 22,360
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2012, 5:02 pm
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a dissenter to the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 11:02 am
(Eugene Volokh) A few days ago I blogged about a question that some readers had asked: why hasn’t United States v. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 8:49 am
In United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 9:51 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 11:51 am
In Dimmett v. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 8:23 pm
The petition of the day is: Castro v. [read post]
31 May 2018, 3:00 pm
The petition of the day is: Padilla-Ramirez v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
United States, __ A.3d __ (D.C. 2015). [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 2:44 pm
United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s aggressive efforts to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in that state. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 9:05 am
Smith v. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 9:05 am
Smith v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 12:49 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 7:52 pm
petition of the day is: Title: First American Financial Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2003, 9:42 am
United States, the US Supreme Court decided that wiretapping private telephone conversations to secure evidence was permissible. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 9:55 pm
Here is the abstract: In separate opinions in Citizens United v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
The question in this case is whether Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.To discuss the case, we have Michael Carvin, who is a Partner at Jones Day.- See more at:… [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
The question in this case is whether Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.To discuss the case, we have Michael Carvin, who is a Partner at Jones Day.- See more at:… [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 8:29 pm
The petition of the day is: Bank Melli v. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 12:34 pm
United States v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 11:36 am
I will be speaking on the panel at from 1 PM to 2:15, on United States v. [read post]
