Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 40,639
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2024, 5:19 am
We note that in the Trump v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
Colorado’s stated objectives are, instead, entirely about (in then-Judge Gorsuch’s words) the preservation of the integrity and “practical functioning” of the Colorado primary election process. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 2:54 pm
An excerpt from today's Appellate Court of Connecticut decision in Ambrose v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 2:26 pm
Harmon v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 1:39 pm
Grp., LLC v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 10:50 am
A short excerpt from today's long decision by Judge Trevor McFadden (D.D.C.) in Newman v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am
For example, Lash, in discussing the question of ratifiers' views on "whether Section Three applied to future insurrections," states (at 45) that "[v]ery few ratifiers specifically addressed" the question, but those who did "came to different conclusions" on this point. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 6:51 am
Jane Doe v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:30 am
Similarly, in SRB v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 2:00 am
In Discovery Builders, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 4:22 pm
Since Mrs Justice Collins Rice handed down judgment in Fox v Blake [2024] EWHC 146 (KB) there has been a lot of online discussion about the case. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 2:13 pm
In the landmark case Carpenter v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 1:56 pm
Instead, in Harris v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 9:08 am
Code § 5412, was not presented at trial can be found in the Noteworthy Panel Decision (NPD) of Raymond Craig Penrose v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 5:05 am
" Trump's brief on the merits in the Supreme Court in Trump v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 6:29 pm
” 395 U.S. at 447; see also Counterman v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm
Fund v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 2:59 pm
Graham v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 11:29 am
Recall that in 2018, in Pereira v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
” Some amici, such as Professor Kurt Lash, have filed briefs arguing that the presidency is not a “disqualified” office covered by the Positions Clause—in other words, that Section 3 permits someone to serve as President (or Vice-President) even if they are a covered person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States (indeed, even if they’ve “given aid or comfort” to… [read post]