Search for: "Matthews v. United States" Results 121 - 140 of 1,750
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Feb 2023, 6:20 am by Matthew J. Sinkman
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also unlikely to take action. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 6:20 am by Matthew J. Sinkman
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also unlikely to take action. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 6:20 am by Matthew J. Sinkman
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also unlikely to take action. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Miller & Harry Hobbs, Unraveling the International Law of Colonialism: Lessons from Australia and the United States, (February 3, 2023). [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
, (December 15, 2022).Ahmed Altawyan, The Scope of Imposing Zakat and Income Tax in Saudi Law, (Taibah University Journal for Law, Volume 1, Issue 2, December 2022،, 9-24).From SSRN (Catholic Legal Thought):Matthew Cavedon, The Man Who Sold the World? [read post]
22 Jan 2023, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
United States The Supreme Court is also expected to hear two cases – Moody v NetChoice and NetChoice v Paxton – concerning the constitutionality of laws in Florida and Texas, which restrict the content moderation capabilities of social media companies. [read post]
28 Dec 2022, 2:45 pm by Lawrence Solum
In response to this conundrum, American courts have oscillated between two judicial postures that the United States Supreme Court has found to be constitutionally permissible: (1) the “compulsory deference” method preferred in the 1871 case Watson v. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
The last half century has witnessed extraordinary, almost unimaginable, changes in how Americans think about the death penalty.Fifty years ago, in 1972, the United States Supreme Court brought a temporary halt to capital punishment in Furman v. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 4:59 am by Patricia Salkin
On appeal, Sheetz contended reversal was required because the TIM fee is invalid under both the Mitigation Fee Act and the takings clause of the United States constitution. [read post]