Search for: "Clements v. State"
Results 161 - 180
of 807
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2014, 3:38 pm
Mostafazadeh,643 F.3d at 1358 (quoting In re Clement, 131 F.3d1464, 1468 (Fed. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 7:01 pm
Under the state court's interpretation, said [Paul Clement, representing the guardian ad litem appointed by the state court to determine the child's best interest], ICWA moves the inquiry away from the child's best interests to focus instead on biology, the birth father and race — namely, that the child has 1 percent Indian blood. 1%! [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm
United States. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 12:24 pm
Troice; Proskauer Rose LLP v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 8:34 am
Wednesday’s oral argument in PPL Montana v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 1:30 am
” Gorman v. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 3:15 pm
Reed v. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 1:44 pm
Clement, now with King & Spalding in Washington. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 7:18 am
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement marked his fiftieth argument before the Supreme Court with Perdue v. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 2:17 pm
This latest stage of the litigation places the constitutional issue front and center.United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 6:33 am
Supreme Court in Fisher v. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 2:27 pm
This requirement is consistent with the limitation imposed upon state-taxpayer standing in federal courts in Doremus v. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 6:20 am
The Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Morrison v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 11:41 am
Haynes, 09–273, on cert to the Fifth Circuit (panel consisting of Jolly, Dennis, and Clement). [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 7:27 am
But Clement’s assertion is nonetheless wrong. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 1:32 pm
Clement. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 6:00 am
” Judge Watson’s analysis reminds me of a colloquy in United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 2:20 pm
Scott Nelson has this post at the Consumer Law & Policy Blog about the Court's unanimous decision in Watson v. [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 2:01 pm
” Accordingly, Chief Justice Clement stated that the Court’s ruling will “allow plaintiffs to receive protection for reporting violations of imaginary laws,” something that the Court had never held before and expressly declined to so hold in a 2010 decision. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 1:39 pm
Instead, the initial question on the merits is whether, notwithstanding the absence of any such legal duty, the state nevertheless imposes “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs," Thomas v. [read post]
