Search for: "People v Trump"
Results 621 - 640
of 4,627
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2012, 9:03 am
Since we have a HIPPA compliant judge this term in the Bronx Civil Court, I found a case, albeit criminal, which while not on point, shows the limits of HIPPA: People v Jaikaran,2012 NY Slip Op 03464 (2d Dept. 2012) “Here, the hospital records were properly certified (see CPLR 4518[a]; CPL 60.10) [MY NOTE: DID THEY MEAN [...] [read post]
4 Jun 2025, 9:13 pm
As interpreted by the Supreme Court in Trump v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 11:43 am
” Steve Elster sought to register the mark “Trump too small” for use on T-shirts to convey a political message about the then-President Donald Trump. [read post]
29 Jul 2018, 10:12 am
The piece compares the Trump-Sessions policy of zero tolerance toward border crossers to the SCOTUS opinion in Prigg v. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 4:13 pm
The justices will hear oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
4 Jul 2024, 8:45 am
The case is Trump v. [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 3:52 am
Greg Stohr reports for Bloomberg that the “Supreme Court is again poised to test the bounds of Donald Trump’s presidential powers, this time in a politically charged clash over the fate of 700,000 people who were brought into the country illegally as children,” in Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 5:24 am
Trump’s legal team is arguing that the suit cannot proceed because a state court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a sitting President; in their view, Clinton v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 8:41 am
In Nucci v. [read post]
23 May 2025, 5:16 pm
Institute of Peace Board Members, Holds <i>Trump v. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 10:05 am
Ferguson and Wolf v. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
[V]ilifying the media has been a building block of Trump’s political identity.... [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 11:00 am
Regents of the University of California, Trump v. [read post]
25 Feb 2025, 2:13 pm
And that could be things like illegally firing people. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm
There's simply no reason at all to think that the 2017 Congress believed that anyone (no reasonable person, anyway) would purchase unwanted insurance because of a "sense of legal obligation" engendered by the 2017 statutory amendment.But even if there were some such unreasonable people out there (such as, perhaps, the individual plaintiffs in the case) who mistakenly read the amended Section 5000A to require them to purchase insurance, those… [read post]
23 Feb 2022, 4:48 pm
After nearly 90 minutes of debate in Arizona v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 3:31 am
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 5:25 am
See People v. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 3:27 am
In the first paragraph of Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 12:18 pm
[Note to readers: This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Moore v. [read post]
