Search for: "Hudson v. US Government" Results 101 - 120 of 598
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jun 2007, 7:10 am
Supreme Court's controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v New London (545 US 469) greatly expanded the government's power of eminent domain by holding that the government could transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 3:45 am
The method of ascertaining loss used in Chay is inapplicable to this case because neither the government nor the victims have made any attempt to put a value on Dove's gain. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Bans on other commercial speech must survive Central Hudson. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 2:21 pm by Bexis
  It’s the “substantial government interest” that the government claims is advanced under the Central Hudson test. [read post]
31 May 2018, 9:48 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 I note that Central Hudson itself is about decreasing demand for a lawful product (energy consumption) and that the Supreme Court easily found that to be a substantial government interest, and the Court did likewise in Rubin v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 3:30 pm
Detroit Board of Education and Teachers v. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 4:48 am
This statement suggests to us a continuum: -- Prisoners have no expectation of privacy (see Hudson v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 7:25 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
SThe matter of inconsistency arose:Finally, no matter the government’s interest, it cannotmeet the fourth prong of Central Hudson. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 3:22 pm by Jon Sands
The 9th, using the rule of lenity, reversed the conviction. [read post]