Search for: "Federal v. Levine" Results 81 - 100 of 1,203
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jan 2022, 8:50 am by Grace Karabinus and Jay L. Levine
Levine Last year, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is not authorized to impose civil penalties on parties who violate the FTC Act unless the party is violating a previous cease and order. [read post]
16 Dec 2021, 2:44 pm by Ram Eachambadi | JURIST Staff
Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
The word “income” is in italics in the previous paragraph for a reason, which is that the relevant constitutional provision (the Sixteenth Amendment) allows the federal government to tax “all incomes, from whatever source derived. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
The word “income” is in italics in the previous paragraph for a reason, which is that the relevant constitutional provision (the Sixteenth Amendment) allows the federal government to tax “all incomes, from whatever source derived. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 4:39 pm by INFORRM
Privacy by Design by Regulation: The Case Study of Ontario, Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law 4 (1) 115-160 (2018), Avner Levin, Lincoln Alexander School of Law at Ryerson University. [read post]
29 Aug 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
And it is worth remembering that the John Lewis Act had seemed to be the bill most likely to receive at least some Republican support, because it mostly tries to restore the status quo ante that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority destroyed in Shelby County v. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 6:00 am by Joshua R. Goodbaum
Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 3:15 pm by Kevin LaCroix
As we have documented elsewhere, since the Supreme Court’s early 2018 decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]