Search for: "People v. Roberts" Results 1861 - 1880 of 6,788
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Apr 2014, 4:16 am by Amy Howe
 And Michael Dorf has two posts on the decision:  at Verdict, he compares the Roberts Court’s view of politics with that of the fictional Frank Underwood in the TV series House of Cards, while at Dorf on Law, he disputes the argument that members of Congress “should be the last people to help decide who should govern. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 10:00 am by Eric Caligiuri
Arthrex, case number 19-1452; and Arthrex v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 2:58 pm by Joey Fishkin
In yesterday’s big campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 9:01 pm by John Dean
Supreme Court overturned their convictions, in McDonnell v. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 5:23 am by James Eckert
But while the jury was actually deliberating, it has always been clear that they had to do so together.Until now.The Court of Appeals has just decided People v Robert Kelly (#58 decided 3/24/11). [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 9:25 pm by Josh Blackman
Are federal judges (not named John Roberts) supposed to base their decisions on the basis of public perception? [read post]
23 May 2008, 10:17 am
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Gonzales v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 4:15 am by Edith Roberts
” Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, and Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, who reports that the decision has “major implications for people like Paul Manafort convicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe and facing state charges as well. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
The first was Hughes v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 3:53 am by SHG
Update:  And here's some more exchange via Orin: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Do any of these other people know about Arch Wireless? [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 6:20 am by Ronald Mann
It was a far cry from the census case or deep disagreement about proper methods of capital punishment, but the justices heard oral argument yesterday afternoon in Taggart v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 3:41 am
I did some checking, and haven’t found anything to indicate it’s not real, but this seems to be pretty much of a giveaway: Professor Robert Smith? [read post]