Search for: "State v. Michael A."
Results 6181 - 6200
of 13,672
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2015, 6:04 am
Michael Dorf weighs in on federalism-related arguments in a column for Verdict and a post at Dorf on Law. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
One difficulty is that, as the Supreme Court stated in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 9:06 am
Some of these concepts were explored in the recent case of Watch v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 2:03 pm
[Legal Cheek] * King v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 8:15 am
” Cohen v. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 10:15 am
Thus, Dole’s clear statement requirement, which Michael Dorf argues supports the government’s position in King, do not apply. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 9:32 am
Ric Simmons (Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 5:44 am
I spend the morning reading into Privy Council case of Hunte and another v The State, a miscarriage of justice case from Trinidad and Tobago that is starting next week. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 7:35 pm
I have a new piece at Politico that follows up on the federalism arguments in King v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 3:31 pm
The much-awaited Supreme Court oral argument in King v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 11:52 am
In the wake of the oral argument in King v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 11:14 am
Timothy Jost Yesterday's Supreme Court argument in King v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 8:28 pm
In New York v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:03 pm
Magliocca at Balkinization, Lisa Soronen at The Council of State Government’s Knowledge Center, Daniel Fisher at Forbes, Michael Bobelian at Forbes, Michael Dorf at Dorf on Law, Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, Alan Cole at Tax Foundation, and Brianne J. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 2:48 pm
When King v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 1:50 pm
After nearly ninety minutes of oral arguments today in King v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 12:29 pm
She'd just spoken for a page and a half, and the petitioners' lawyer Michael A. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 10:43 am
On Wednesday, as the challengers’ lawyer, Washington attorney Michael A. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 8:13 am
The Justices focused their questioning for the remainder of Michael Carvin’s argument for the petitioners on whether his interpretation of the statute had put an “elephant in a mousehole,” i.e., whether it would have made any sense for Congress to put such an important condition for receiving subsidies inside a technical formula for calculating the amount of the subsidy. [read post]
