Search for: "Mark E. Howard" Results 101 - 120 of 424
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Oct 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
Mark Walsh offers a first-hand account of yesterday’s arguments at this blog. [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 7:49 am
Marshall Dann, Herbert Wamsley, Helen Wilson Nies, Mike Kirk, Tom Arnold, Howard T. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 4:37 am by Hon. Richard G. Kopf
After learning of the LCWA from How Appealing on July 20, 2018, I wrote a tweet regarding the LCWA’s Response that quoted Howard Bashman, the author of How Appealing, and added: “New Spanish Inquisition by SJWs? [read post]
15 Jul 2018, 4:01 am by INFORRM
Rather, the starting point for internet regulation for many submitting evidence is the E-Commerce directive, which sets out harmonised rules for online businesses and gives platforms significant responsibilities to remove illegal content when notified. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 4:17 am by Edith Roberts
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman points out that Nieves v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern suggests that Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion in Lucia v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
Mark Walsh has a first-hand account of yesterday’s opinion announcements for this blog. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 4:29 am by Edith Roberts
” At American Greatness, Mark Pulliam wonders why “so many right-of-center scholars praise[d] Gorsuch’s erroneous decision. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 8:28 am by Dan Carvajal
It undergirded the English Civil War and the American Revolution; it helped shape the French Revolution; it got Karl Marx arrested; and in 1970s California it fired up an activist named Howard Jarvis, who shocked the political establishment with the success of Proposition 13, generally regarded as the first battleground of the modern property tax revolt.[1] With the benefit of hindsight, Proposition 13’s success appears obvious. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:13 am by Edith Roberts
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman remarks that the court “conclude[ed] yet again that Congress’ power to ‘change the law’ to push pending litigation to its preferred conclusion is, in practice, unbounded. [read post]