Search for: "Grant v. Mueller" Results 61 - 80 of 383
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2020, 1:15 pm by Steve Vladeck
Another petition with a decent chance of being granted that could potentially become moot is Azar v. [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 4:00 am by Administrator
” This chapter discusses the attacks on the rule of law by the President and some in his orbit, including: (i) the rule of law; (ii) criticisms of laws by the President; (iii) The Hatch Act; (iv) other examples of violations; (v) military law; and (vi) pardons. 12.2 Rule of Law The President of the United States takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 8:41 am by Nathaniel Sobel
By contrast, court papers filed during the Mueller investigation noted that Mifsud “claimed to have substantial connections to Russian government officials. [read post]
7 Sep 2020, 10:04 am by Paul Rosenzweig, Vishnu Kannan
Back in 2012 (before the age of Trump), I thought this grant of emergency authority was a wise decision, writing that “any President of either party should not be presumed to exercise powers granted in a dictatorial way. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 6:50 am by Florian Mueller
Yesterday I reported on a courtroom insanity of potentially pathological proportions in Munich (Nokia v. [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 5:04 pm by Josh Blackman
[After two days of hero worship for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, day three dumps on the Junior Justice.] [read post]
  A key factor that gave rise to discussion at appeal was that, although McDonald did become a granted patent in some countries, there was no evidence that McDonald was ever implemented or commercialised. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 5:54 am by Jed Handelsman Shugerman
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Seila Law v. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 4:10 pm by INFORRM
Former special counsel Robert Muller is being sued for defamation over a footnote in the Mueller report which identified him as a “Russian businessman”. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 11:40 pm by Schachtman
Food and Drug Administration announced the revocation of its emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychlorine (HCQ).[1] The FDA had originally granted the emergency use authorization for HCQ, on March 28, 2020, but its continued review found that the drug was “unlikely to be effective at treating COVID-19” and the potential risks of HCQ use outweigh any potential benefits. [read post]
If the latter, then this may be contrasted with the approach taken by Pumfrey J in Abbott v Ranbaxy [2004] where he stated that had he not granted summary judgment on validity grounds, he would have granted a preliminary injunction. [read post]