Search for: "Petition of Thomas" Results 861 - 880 of 4,008
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Oct 2020, 12:25 pm by Scott R. Anderson
Gore, and four members of the current Supreme Court—Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas—recently voted in support of two (unsuccessful) petitions for stays by the Pennsylvania Republican Party that relied in substantial part on such arguments. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 8:17 am by Eric Goldman
Because the court wasn’t briefed on most of the issues Justice Thomas nevertheless discusses, it makes me wonder where Justice Thomas got his information. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 7:51 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Also today, Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari in Rogers County Board of Tax Roll Corrections v. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 8:24 am by Danielle D'Onfro
The chief justice and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer questioned whether the debtors’ reading of § 362(a)(3) rendered § 542 superfluous. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 8:10 am by James Romoser
The justices are meeting Friday for a private conference, where they are taking a second look at petitions that ask them to weigh in on the funding for President Donald Trump’s border wall and a Fourth Amendment issue about police pursuit of a suspect. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 12:51 pm by Stephen Wermiel
§ 1983); judges should not be reading the doctrine into the law, Thomas says. [read post]
14 Oct 2020, 2:32 pm by John Elwood
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a one-sentence dissent in the last, arguing that the case had become moot and that the decision under review should be vacated. [read post]
14 Oct 2020, 10:26 am by Amy Howe
After considering the state’s petition for review at 15 consecutive conferences, the Supreme Court threw out the lower court’s ruling on the disposal of fetal remains. [read post]
13 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Second, although the Court rejected the Davis review petition unanimously, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a statement explaining that, despite his agreement with the procedural disposition of the case, he was very sympathetic to Davis and remains hostile to the Obergefell decision, from which the two Justices dissented.The Thomas statement in the Davis case is gratuitous, offensive, and poorly reasoned. [read post]
13 Oct 2020, 7:57 pm by Amy Howe
The justices consolidated the three petitions (United States v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 8:05 pm by Marty Lederman
The topic of my Law of Religion class today was what government actors should or must do when their legal and religious obligations conflict with one another. [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 2:28 am by Florian Mueller
And once again, UK and German judges are to blame because they've brought about a situation in which other jurisdictions will have to take ever more extreme measures.Also on Tuesday, Professor Thomas Cotter mentioned on his much recommended Comparative Patent Remedies blog a Chinese court's antisuit injunction against InterDigital in connection with its standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation against Xiaomi in India, and the fact that InterDigital had asked the Delhi High Court… [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 8:21 pm by Ilya Somin
Last summer, however, the Justice Department filed a cert petition calling on the Supreme Court to reverse the Second Circuit's ruling; cert was granted in November. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 8:31 am by Jonathan Bailey
Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday. 1: Plagiarism Case Over Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven Finally Ends First off today, Ben Beaumont-Thomas at The Guardian reports that the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in the Stairway to Heaven case, bringing an end to the long-running dispute. [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 2:40 pm by Amy Howe
” Davis’ “petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. [read post]
In the petition, Kim Davis’s lawyers argued that her refusal to issue marriage licenses did not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ right to marry. [read post]