Search for: "Bush v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 4,381
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2009, 1:44 pm
The Montana Supreme Court has issued an Opinion in the following matter: OP 08-0430, 2009 MT 349, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 5:42 pm
Hasen (Loyola Law School - Los Angeles) has posted Bush v. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 10:25 am
Knowsley Housing Trust v White (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening); Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening); Islington London Borough Council v Honeygan-Green: [2008] UKHL 70 “On a proper construction of Part I of the Housing Act 1988 an assured tenancy subject to a [...] [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 3:17 pm
The thorny and increasingly important issue of jurisdiction went before the Court of Appeal earlier this month in Bush v Bush [2008] EWCA Civ 865.The Facts: The parties were married in London in April 1988 and went to live in Tanzania in 1991 or 1992. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 5:40 pm by constitutional lawblogger
Speaking to the Chicago Tribune editorial board, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reportedly stated that the Court took the case of Bush v. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 6:36 am
Moreover, examining state practice before and after 9/11, the author comes to the conclusion that the Bush Doctrine is not an ‘invention’ of the Bush administration, as other US administrations and states have used the same arguments. [read post]
6 Feb 2008, 4:05 pm
In his blog, Washington Post reporter David Achenbach suggests that if the delegate count is close enough, the Clinton campaign will start agitating for the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates in what can only be described as Bush v. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 8:48 am by Jack Goldsmith
Marty Lederman says in response to my posts that the big difference between the Bush and Obama preemption doctrines was that the Bush Administration “argued that international law permits the United States to engage in a ‘first use’ strike, in a nonconsenting state, against a state or nonstate actor that has not already engaged in an armed attack against the United States, before any threat of attack is ‘fully… [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 10:21 pm
Foley (Ohio State University College of Law) has posted The Future of Bush v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 8:02 pm
Supreme Court Rejects Bush Administration Position on Guantanamo Detainees: The Watershed of the Boumediene v. [read post]