Search for: "STATE v BUSH" Results 1001 - 1020 of 4,538
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2007, 7:22 am
Here is a paragraph from a column posted yesterday:Medellin v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 1:34 pm
I’m delighted to say that the Nebraska Supreme Court has just agreed to review State v. [read post]
10 Jul 2007, 9:12 am
January 21, 2009: Sheehan files articles of impeachment against President Bush ex post facto. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 2:58 am
In another case, however, DoJ declined to change course, and instead adhered to the wrongheaded position of the Bush administration.The other case is District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 12:35 am
Justice Department drew upon letter from Secretary of State Dean Acheson in its brief in Brown v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 7:30 am by Nadia Kayyali
Obama:  EFF joined forces with ACLU, the ACLU of Idaho, Peter Smith, and Idaho State Rep. [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 12:58 pm
Here, Christopher Rugaber writes in the Insurance Journal about the Court's decision to hear United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 11:41 pm
In a nutshell... it puts the uber-conservatives on our Supreme Court in the unenviable position of either having to stick to their "core" values upholding state's rights by giving their blessing (just couldn't resist ;) ) to gay marriage in the bay state... or show themselves to be the hypocrites (think Bush v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 5:40 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
For more on fair tax v. flat tax v. our current system, click here. 9:53 p.m. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 6:58 am by Eric Posner
A system of executive primacy could be put into place only through constitutional amendment that complies with the procedures set out in Article V, and no such amendments exist. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
** In Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd. of City of Albany (71 AD2d 780), Appellate Division, Third Department, found that "[a]s residents of the city, the individual petitioners are persons aggrieved by a decision of the planning board and thus have standing to bring this proceeding", while in Zehner v Board of Educ. of the Jordan-Elbridge Cent. [read post]