Search for: "Brown v. United States" Results 41 - 60 of 4,142
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Mar 2025, 6:07 am by Eugene Volokh
I'm a mother of four children and I live in the United States without any family for the last seventeen years. [read post]
2 Mar 2025, 12:53 pm by Josh Blackman
On January 10, 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued a published opinion in United State v. [read post]
25 Feb 2025, 8:26 am by Scott Bomboy
United States , which held that a postmaster could be removed by the chief executive because “an officer is merely one of the units in the executive department. [read post]
24 Feb 2025, 4:41 am by Weronika Galka
Charles Brown with a retired three-star officer, Lt. [read post]
19 Feb 2025, 11:21 am by Brian Albrecht
Modern merger analysis—reflected in cases like 1974’s United States v. [read post]
8 Feb 2025, 4:31 am by Kalvis Golde
United States 24-482Issue: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause. [read post]
7 Feb 2025, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
Judge Richard Gergel of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina recently discussed his book Unexampled Courage: The Blinding of Sgt. [read post]
7 Feb 2025, 5:00 am by jonathanturley
The issue before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was the use of a police psychiatrist to examine Brown, who had a 51 IQ. [read post]
1 Feb 2025, 6:15 am by Lawrence Solum
Larson Professor of Civil Rights at the University of Minnesota Law School“In this powerful and eloquent book, Michelle Adams reveals the history of how the Supreme Court undermined the promise of Brown v. [read post]
28 Jan 2025, 6:50 am by gA
"Gutiérrez, Víctor Samuel c/ Estado Nacional" (Fallos 300:1092, 1978)Sentó principios fundamentales sobre la responsabilidad del Estado por actividad ilícita. [read post]
27 Jan 2025, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
The proposed Idaho Memorial (which would need to be approved on the floor of both houses of the state legislature before it would take effect) provides in part: We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho assembled in the First Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that: WHEREAS, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. [read post]