Search for: "Matter of Robert T"
Results 6821 - 6840
of 10,571
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2010, 3:19 pm
At least he won’t have to travel far for any appearances. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 2:08 pm
But we won’t have that today. [read post]
30 Aug 2007, 12:54 am
What began nearly six years ago as a simple matter she agreed to handle as a favor to a federal judge has given rise to a $5 million legal malpractice claim. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 6:34 am
Given the Roberts court’s stare decisis leanings, full-scale rejection of Chevron seems unlikely. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 3:08 pm
Everyone knows that you don’t need a bribe in order to buy influence. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 11:34 am
” It wasn’t clear whether Kagan was convinced, but other justices – most notably Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito – were clearly worried that a ruling for the challengers might entangle courts in second-guessing the president’s national-security determinations. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 4:38 am
In The Washington Post, Ed O’Keefe and Robert Barnes survey various issues that are likely to be the focus of questioning by Democratic senators, noting that many “conservative activists and GOP lawmakers say that the laundry list of Democratic concerns is evidence that they don’t quite know how to pin down Gorsuch. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 4:15 pm
It isn't. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 4:34 pm
This matters because, if there is no distinction between the court and the government’s attorney for purposes of Rule 6(e), the court would be bound by the rule. [read post]
28 May 2019, 8:40 am
Indeed, Barr has already expressed his initial skepticism, observing that “[a] lot of the answers have been inadequate and some of the explanations I’ve gotten don’t hang together. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 7:21 am
Chief Justice John Roberts asks that since the shareholders are claiming their stock was completely wiped out in a unique way, isn’t their claim direct and therefore not barred? [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 10:44 am
“[T]he First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. [read post]
10 Jan 2023, 2:39 pm
Michel and John T. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 5:00 am
Both Robert and Valentina Wasson published sensational magazine articles in Life! [read post]
23 Aug 2006, 3:31 pm
The Board adopted the administrative law judge's finding and held that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Supervisor Dorothy Johnson refused to allow Postal Workers Local 232's representative Robert Gardner to speak during a Weingarten predisciplinary interview of employee Robert Bruff. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 8:38 am
[I]t is clear that on multiple occasions [Michael] advised [Bernice] about his expectation that any sale of IBG could generate a substantial financial reward for their family. . . . [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 9:01 pm
”Dissenting from the Supreme Court’s decision finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Chief Justice Roberts expressed a similar worry to the one that animated the Brown II Court. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 8:29 am
Next, if he is to be an effective Machiavellian jurist, he will need to be artful in matters ranging from what he wri [read post]
3 Dec 2014, 7:55 am
In the same vein, Chief Justice John Roberts, thinking himself persuaded by Katyal’s argument that the infringement litigation differed from the TTAB procedures because of its emphasis on the details of actual use, sought to confirm that Hargis would be satisfied with a doctrinal compromise: “So why isn’t it enough to say that as a general matter, the TTAB proceedings are preclusive, but if you are showing a difference in use or a more specialized use or… [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 7:18 am
Ben Miller and Robert D. [read post]
