Search for: "People v. David" Results 1401 - 1420 of 5,134
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Nov 2013, 8:48 am by Donald Clarke
(Law on Legislation, Art. 8(v); that's one reason why re-education through labor, with its flimsy statutory basis, has been under attack.) [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 12:15 pm by Steven Cohen
 The defendants filed a motion to exclude, which was denied Facts – This case (Bernstein v. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 12:28 pm by Josh Blackman
The post Justice Stevens's Papers Reveal How The Fortune Cookies Were Baked In <I>Lawrence v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
 This claim is, of course, deeply counterintuitive, and it would be very awkward, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to explain to the American people that Section 3 doesn’t apply to someone who’s been President because although that person held an “office,” it wasn’t an office “of the United States. [read post]
18 Apr 2009, 5:36 am
I do not know if these people are just stupid or merely lying. [read post]
4 Oct 2024, 1:09 pm by Kevin
But people who wanted to ride probably wouldn’t have stayed home anyway. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:36 am by James Coppess
” In the numerous decisions applying Abood in a wide variety of non-labor contexts, not a single justice expressed the slightest doubt that, as Justice David Souter put it in a 1997 dissent in Glickman v. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Espinoza v. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 9:30 pm by Bobby Chen
Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. [read post]
17 May 2014, 12:00 am
Ditto for David Brooks, who plays coffee-table intellectual as columnist for The New York Times and PBS NewsHour.This was a fabulous read. [read post]