Search for: "BROWN v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" Results 81 - 100 of 252
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Aug 2007, 9:41 am
Let us start today with an August 3, 2007 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia -- the court that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts sat on before they were anointed to the Supreme Court as a reward for their reactionaryism -- in a case called Abigail Alliance For Better Access To Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach . [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
  A federal appeals court in New York and the District of Columbia’s highest local court rejected the constitutional complaints. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 6:59 am by Edith Roberts
Attorney for the District of Columbia, Thapar moved back to Ohio in 2001. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 11:45 am by Mike Rappaport
(And remember that Congress is the constitutional analogue of a state legislature for the District of Columbia.) [read post]
8 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm by Jeffrey Morris
Although only briefly in private practice, Weinstein did serve as a member of the legendary team of attorneys who worked on the appeal to the Supreme Court of Brown v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 8:45 am by Samantha Fry
District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC) denies Trump’s motion for preliminary injunction, entering summary judgment in favor of the committee. [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 12:53 pm
"  To support this, he relied on Brown Shoe Co. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 3:00 pm by Raffaela Wakeman
Crying foul, Ralls brought suit against CFIUS in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which last year dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 7:00 am by Todd Presnell
District Court for the District of Columbia, August 10, 2012. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 7:00 am by Todd Presnell
District Court for the District of Columbia, August 10, 2012. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 12:00 pm by Lyle Denniston
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit nullified Amtrak’s shared role in settling disputes over those rules. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 9:46 am by Rachel Brown, Coleman Saunders
” The Fourth Amendment precludes the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, but, as the Supreme Court noted in Mapp v. [read post]