Search for: "Powers v. Thomas" Results 1541 - 1560 of 5,407
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2020, 9:00 pm by Rodger Citron
The justices then asked questions in the following sequence: Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.Sometimes this format promoted continuity, other times it disrupted the flow of the argument. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 2:22 pm by Giles Peaker
Escott, R (On the application of) v Chichester District Council (2020) EWHC 1687 (Admin) A judicial review where the relevant parts played out in the early stages of the pandemic lockdown, and where the central question was whether self contained accommodation provided without a fridge, cooker and bed, was suitable within the meaning of section 206 Housing Act 1996, such that interim relief could be ordered. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 7:46 pm by Ilya Somin
[The 4-2 ruling is reminiscent of the federal Supreme Court's dubious decision in Kelo v. [read post]
25 Jun 2020, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
Benjamin EidelsonThis post offers preliminary analysis of DHS v. [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 11:45 am by Paul Cassell
This conclusion is reinforced by the drafting history of Rule 48(a), recently summarized nicely in a short, on-line piece by Thomas Frampton. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 3:35 pm by John Jascob
In dissent, Justice Thomas argued that disgorgement is not a traditional equitable remedy and can never be awarded under Section 21(d)(5) (Liu v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 1:39 pm by Steve Bainbridge
By an 8-1 vote (with Justice Thomas dissenting), the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor upheld--while limiting--the SEC's power to seek disgorgement in fraud cases. [read post]
20 Jun 2020, 3:16 pm by Josh Blackman
But "'past practice does not, by itself, create [executive] power.'" Medellín v. [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 3:56 pm by David Kopel
I, sect. 8, cls. 15-16) give Congress the power to arm the militia and to call it forth. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 2:12 pm by Peter Margulies
This principle, first announced by the Supreme Court in 1943's SEC v. [read post]