Search for: "US v. John Oliver" Results 61 - 80 of 390
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Mar 2015, 5:28 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in King v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 7:48 am by Audrey Ah-Kan, Olswang
Last week, the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in Newdow v Roberts challenging the use of the phrase, “so help me God”, within the presidential oath of office. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:03 am by Erin Miller
  To use a well-known example, Justice Stevens’ dissent in Bowers v. [read post]
7 Jun 2014, 6:21 am by Tara Hofbauer
Finally, on the lighter side, Paul gave us a highly entertaining video, in which John Oliver explains net neutrality, and he also shared an article by Michael Stern considering how President George Washington would have replied to a House of Representatives request for documents from his Office of Legal Counsel—if he had had one. [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 9:55 am by David Post
Scott Applewhite/Associated Press) Yes, says Oliver Roeder,  in an interesting essay at fivethirtyeight.com. [read post]
2 May 2012, 2:48 am by Rumpole
(For the US view on forced sterilizations, and Oliver Wendell Holmes majority opinion that "three generations of imbeciles are enough" , check out Buck v. [read post]
15 Jun 2021, 11:03 am by Nathan Dorn
John Adams adopted Otis as a hero and mentor after witnessing his oration in Paxton v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 7:21 am by Andrew Hamm
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously suggested in 1919 in Schenck v. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 10:59 am by Peter (Pete) A. Steinmeyer
John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (Ill. 2006) (group of doctors); Cockerill v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:49 am by Lawrence Solum
At about 12:40 p.m., Chief Justice Warren began to read his opinion for the Court in Case Number One on that Term’s docket, Oliver Brown et al. v. [read post]
9 May 2019, 2:12 pm by Andrew Hamm
Watkins, “holding that religious tests may not be used to decide who holds public office” Engel v. [read post]