Search for: "State v. Congress"
Results 5981 - 6000
of 29,294
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Sep 2020, 7:03 am
(U.S. 2000, holding that the state’s right to control the issuance of gaming licenses implicated its role as sovereign, not as property holder). [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 10:12 pm
See Caperton v. [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 7:49 am
The first case of the day will be Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 7:51 am
Can Congress? [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 1:46 pm
Harrington v. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
Westwood Apex v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 9:55 am
" This is at least the second time a state's highest court has split 4-3 on a 230 case--the old Doe v. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 10:04 am
” This follows directly from New York v. [read post]
31 May 2007, 3:11 pm
Congress could have expressly limited the Rule's application to specific acts, but it did not do so.On part two Judge Baker found error, but ultimately held no prejudice under the constitutional standard (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt), citing United States v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:46 am
Washington and Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 3:45 pm
Congress did not provide any funding for the private land acquisition necessary for expansion until 1992, and the expansion was not fully funded until 1999. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 2:00 am
United States. [read post]
15 May 2023, 12:26 pm
As a refresher, the Dormant Commerce Clause stems from Congress’s Article 1, Section 8 authority to regulate commerce “among the several States. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 9:54 am
The Cordray appointment is under constitutional challenge in a separate case in federal district court in Washington (State National Bank of Big Spring v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 10:25 am
AsIs v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 6:16 pm
Last April, in Farhy v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:26 pm
No dice as to the States, said the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 7:30 am
Curcione, 657 F.3d 116.Addressing Petitioner's "Constitutional Claims", Appeals concluded that the district court correctly held that her constitutional claims against SUNY Albany are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which precludes suits by citizens against states unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 7:30 am
Curcione, 657 F.3d 116.Addressing Petitioner's "Constitutional Claims", Appeals concluded that the district court correctly held that her constitutional claims against SUNY Albany are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which precludes suits by citizens against states unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 7:30 am
Curcione, 657 F.3d 116.Addressing Petitioner's "Constitutional Claims", Appeals concluded that the district court correctly held that her constitutional claims against SUNY Albany are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which precludes suits by citizens against states unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity. [read post]
