Search for: "Davis v. City of Chicago"
Results 1 - 20
of 124
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Apr 2022, 11:14 am
Facts: This case (Livingston et al v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 10:09 am
Supreme Court decision in Terry v. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 6:00 am
Bell (1982) Grove City College v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 4:09 am
Supreme Court decision in Terry v. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 8:00 am
Davis v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 9:00 am
Hanson v. [read post]
14 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
Susan Danzig et al. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 9:00 pm
Anthony Davis, et al. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 5:57 am
Palmer, who was part of the four-to-three majority ruling in favor of the city in the eminent domain case Kelo v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 4:59 am
City of Chicago (7th Cir. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 2:00 am
” Davis v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:02 am
The outcome in Trump v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
Two federal district courts recently upheld decisions by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (FRBKC) and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (FRBSF) to deny master account applications from Custodia Bank (Custodia) and PayServices Bank (PayServices). [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 4:57 am
Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 2022 U.S. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 7:01 am
Reporting on another response to a recent Court decision, the Chicago Tribune describes the ongoing adjustments being made by Chicago’s City Council to gun-control measures it quickly approved after the Court’s 2010 decision in McDonald v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
Stone (Univ. of Chicago Law School) Rebecca Tushnet (Georgetown Univ. [read post]
3 May 2013, 12:00 am
v=ZtngmqBOk1s [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 9:30 pm
It is curated by Mary Ziegler, UC Davis School of Law (Harvard Gazette).Randall Kennedy, HLS, interviewed on Walker v. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 9:00 am
City of East Chicago (NFP) - [This case involves a slow response to a public records request.] [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 9:01 pm
For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] [read post]
