Search for: "STATE V. POWERS"
Results 8241 - 8260
of 41,395
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2015, 9:35 am
Some cases, like D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 9:01 pm
House of Representatives v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 8:40 am
The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Watters v. [read post]
21 May 2008, 1:43 pm
" This ruling in State v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 5:18 am
As the Court later explained in Baker v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 2:27 pm
TVA v. [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 7:57 am
(V. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 3:31 pm
” The Supreme Court had indicated that “coercive” conditional grants are unconstitutional as far back as the 1930s, and reiterated that point in South Dakota v. [read post]
28 Aug 2016, 7:10 pm
Rowan v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 2:54 am
The Indiana Court of Appeals say no in Garcia-Torres v. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 10:39 am
Only Congress has the power to spend money, and authorize the imposition of conditions on federal grants to state and local governments. [read post]
5 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm
Obergefell bookends a volatile two years in the Federal Court system which began with the decision in United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2024, 5:30 am
Here are the discussion questions for United States v. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 6:25 pm
Ilya Somin added another post at Volokh Conspiracy to the discussion of whether the AWA registration provisions run afoul of the Commerce Clause after Raich:In my earlier post on the federal district court decision striking down a part of the Adam Walsh Act as beyond Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause, I omitted a crucial additional reason why this legislation is valid under the Supreme Court's misguided 2005 decision in Gonzales v. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 8:40 am
”) Bowman v. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 10:48 am
., v. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 6:30 am
Peck, cases on state bills of credit in the Jacksonian era, the Legal Tender cases, and Pollock v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 10:17 am
In United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 6:37 am
United States, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that citizens, not just states, has standing to challenge the validity of the statute (federal laws implementing the chemical weapons treaty) on the ground that it infringes on the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.NPR Online also offers commentary on the opinions. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 10:13 pm
The en banc Ninth Circuit set out to clear up the standard in United States v. [read post]
