Search for: "Short v. United States" Results 1841 - 1860 of 10,136
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2010, 11:16 pm by Orin Kerr
United States, Justice Scalia argued that this entire approach was illegitimate. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 11:16 pm by Orin Kerr
United States, Justice Scalia argued that this entire approach was illegitimate. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 12:22 pm by John Floyd
  In July 2022, the American Bar Association weighed in on the internecine legal warfare between political activist attorneys and state bar associations this way:   “In June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Janus v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 6:40 pm by Zachary Spilman
Nealy, 71 M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2012) and United States v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 8:32 pm by Florian Mueller
It's been a few years since I last woke up to a significant procedural order ("signficant" as opposed to lawyers' appearances being approved) in Oracle v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 3:00 am by Ted Folkman
HT to Antonin Pribetic for a pointer to today’s case of the day, Khan Resources, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 8:43 am by Paula Lombardi
Recently, two cases State of Netherlands v Urgenda (December 20, 2019) and Juliana v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am by Kirsten Sjvoll, Matrix Chambers
It is established in Strasbourg and domestic jurisprudence that in certain “well-defined circumstances” art 2 will impose “a positive obligation on [state] authorities to take preventative operational measure” to protect the life of an individual (Osman v UK (2009) 29 EHRR 245 at 115). [read post]
27 Apr 2008, 4:09 pm
In the first part of its opinion in United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2021, 6:50 am by James Romoser
Here’s the Tuesday morning read: With the courts (and Kavanaugh) on their side, advocates plot future challenges to the NCAA (Molly Hensley-Clancy, The Washington Post) The NCAA, the Supreme Court, a Duck, and a Bicycle (Jason Gay, The Wall Street Journal) Supreme Court Protects Faith-Based Adoption, For Now (Jeremy Dys, Newsweek) “LGBTQ+ Need Not Apply” (Amanda Shanor, The Regulatory Review) United States v. [read post]