Search for: "May v. Austin" Results 1881 - 1900 of 2,237
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2010, 12:25 pm by Lawrence Solum
The triumphalism extended to the majority’s view that it had imposed coherence on the unwieldy body of campaign finance jurisprudence by excising an “outlier” 1990 opinion, Austin v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 1:17 pm by Lawrence Solum
The triumphalism extended to the majority’s view that it had imposed coherence on the unwieldy body of campaign finance jurisprudence by excising an “outlier” 1990 opinion, Austin v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 2:52 am by Kevin LaCroix
  Finally, a May 26, 2010 memo from the Pillsbury Winthrop law firm discusses the Second Circuit’s May 18, 2010 decision in Slayton v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 11:19 am
Second Statement: A Third-Way Legal Framework For Addressing The Comcast Dilemma, a statement by Austin Schlick, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission prepared at the request of Chairman Genachowski: The second statement, prepared by Austin Schlick, General Counsel of the FCC at the request of Chairman Genachowski describes the legal thinking behind the narrow and tailored approach to broadband communications services that Chairman Genachowski introduced for public… [read post]
25 May 2010, 8:11 am by Steve Hall
"Supreme Court to review Texas death row case," is the title of Michael Graczyk's AP report, via the Austin American-Statesman. [read post]
24 May 2010, 11:11 am by Marvin Ammori
”It is for this reason, actually, that she suggested Austin could not be distinguis [read post]
13 May 2010, 8:28 pm by Eric Turkewitz
But don’t take my word for it, as this is what federal judge Frederick Scullin, Jr. said about it in Alexander v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 1:04 pm by Berin Szoka
FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick’s legal memorandum supporting the “Third Way” makes no mention of the Universal Service Fund. [read post]
12 May 2010, 12:34 pm by jmehalik
The SCOTUS found in favor of Citizens United, overturning previous campaign election cases that held corporations couldn’t give unlimited amounts to political campaigns, such as Austin v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 9:27 am by Adam Schlossman
  Specifically, in Politico, Kenneth Vogel examines what he describes as a “largely overlooked passage” in a 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review, “in which Kagan seems to diminish as anomalous the Supreme Court’s ruling in Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce…which allowed governments to bar corporations from paying for ads supporting or opposing candidates. [read post]