Search for: "Gill v. DOJ"
Results 1 - 20
of 28
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2009, 2:14 pm
Department of Justice, Civil Division, has filed its motion to dismiss in Gill v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 12:14 pm
" But Gill v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 10:09 am
Today the DOJ filed its motion to dismiss in another case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, Gill v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 10:46 am
He also examines the prospect for Gill v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 9:09 pm
Gill v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 2:06 am
Last week, the DOJ and parties represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders agreed to a stay of the district court’s decision in Gill v. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 7:04 pm
HHS and Gill v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 10:39 am
Gill et al. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 7:04 pm
" On the latter question, readers of the DoJ's Bishop brief will find that some of the arguments reprise those already made, and made again, in Gill v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 9:40 am
Until June 6th, Bishop et al v. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 11:00 am
Department of Justice et al (Gill v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 9:00 am
While Perry and the Prop 8 litigation has been getting most of the attention in the media and blogosphere, the Massachusetts District court decisions in Gill v OPM and Massachusetts v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:59 am
The DOJ justifies the shift by arguing that in the earlier DOMA cases, like Gill v. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 11:00 am
06/26/09 hunter of justice:Georgetown University Law Professor Nan Hunter comments on Gill v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 12:19 pm
Gill v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 6:44 am
Mass. case Gill v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 9:47 pm
One decision, Gill v. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 9:25 am
OPM in February and continued with the First Circuit's ruling in Gill v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 1:20 am
12/1/09 SF Chronicle: In Gill v. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 8:44 pm
In order to rule in favor of the plaintiff states (or to accept the DOJ's concessions), the Chief Justice would have to reject his longstanding views of standing (as expressed most recently in Gill v. [read post]
