Search for: "Hamilton et al v. United States of America" Results 1 - 20 of 28
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Nov 2009, 7:20 am
Abdullahi et al. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
Bartlett, et. al., Comment on the Definition of ‘Eligible Organization’ for Purposes of Coverage of Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act, (October 8, 2014).Alan E. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 12:36 pm
United States Issue: Whether the holding in Roe v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 8:08 am by Allison Trzop
Briefly: At PrawfsBlawg, Will Baude covers United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 1:56 pm by Matthew Bush
Hamilton Bank and the assertion in state court of an England v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
Taft, Anti-Semitism in the United States (1920) Benjamin N. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 7:15 pm by Barbara Moreno
Silja Voeneky, et. al., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence:  Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2022). 82. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 7:20 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
Working Arrangements Across Employment Sectors by Percentage of Workers In their own survey, Barrero et al. measured the full-time working arrangements in the United States as of 2023, identifying the percentage of employees who work fully onsite, fully remote, and those who have a hybrid arrangement. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 11:39 pm by David Kopel
  Commentary During the Ratification PeriodThe Federalist PapersThe Federalist No. 29 (Alexander Hamilton)The Federalist No. 46 (James Madison)Tench CoxeOther FederalistsD. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm by Josh Blackman
See, e.g., America's Constitution: A Biography 170-73, 556-57 (2006); Akhil Amar, America's Unwritten Constitution 17-19, 404 (2012); see also Akhil Amar, The Words That Made Us 472-465 (2021). [read post]
  The Executive Order endorsed this approach, noting that “this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions whose previous consummation was in violation of the [antitrust laws]. [read post]