Search for: "Barrett Co. v. United States" Results 81 - 100 of 244
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Sep 2020, 3:55 pm by CAFE
Supreme Court, opinion & dissent, 5/29/07 United States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 11:11 pm by Josh Blackman
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] Trump v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
Jackson Lecture on the Supreme Court of the United States, on Wednesday, July 25, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. in Chautauqua’s Hall of Philosophy. [read post]
7 Feb 2021, 1:01 pm by Josh Blackman
[This post was co-authored by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman] On Thursday, February 4, 2021, we discussed the First Amendment arguments in the House of Representatives' Managers' trial memorandum. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 9:00 pm by Dean Falvy
As Election Day turns into Election Night, do you worry about a similar scenario playing out in the United States? [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 6:36 am
  The conflict around the suitability of Amy Coney Barrett, then, reflects  the way law is now understood as the expression of a striving for (eternal?) [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 10:25 pm by Josh Blackman
Earlier this year, the January 6 committee requested certain documents from the Archivist of the United States. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
This is a Norwich Pharmacal order, named for the case in which it was first granted (see Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] UKHL 6 (26 June 1973); see also The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd [2013] 1 All ER 928, [2012] 1 WLR 3333, [2012] UKSC 55 (21 November 2012)), and the Supreme Court has affirmed that it forms part of Irish law (see Megaleasing v Barrett (No 2) [1993] ILRM 497;… [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 4:47 pm by INFORRM
On the other hand, the Colorado restriction might not survive the application of United States v United Foods, Inc 533 US 405 (2001), where obligations upon fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales did not survive Central Hudson scrutiny as mediated through Glickman v Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc 521 US 457 (1997). [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 3:00 pm by Josh Blackman
[This post was co-authored by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman] Introduction. [read post]