Search for: "Hill v. Harper"
Results 41 - 60
of 82
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2020, 6:54 am
” Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court rules against Trump on Emoluments Clause. [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 5:54 pm
” Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Justices spar over fate of consumer agency. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:37 am
In Greene v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Farmington Hills, MI Greenhaven Press, 2007. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 7:00 am
Lewis v. [read post]
4 Jul 2023, 4:43 pm
Harper), immigration (US v. [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 6:55 am
” I covered the statement for this blog, with other coverage coming from Pete Williams and Halimah Abdullah of NBC News, Michael Shear of The New York Times, Jessica Taylor and Meg Anderson of NPR, Priscilla Alvarez of The Atlantic, Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, and Harper Neidig of The Hill. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 1:55 am
- Factors in distinguishing between possession with intent to distribute drugs and simple possession of drugs are discussed in Harper v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 8:53 am
Over at Appellate Daily, Michelle Olsen reports on a pending cert. petition involving Miranda warnings, and Jim Harper of Cato At Liberty reports on a recent amicus brief in Florida v. [read post]
28 May 2010, 7:16 am
David Kravets at Wired reports on a petition for certiorari that was filed recently in Harper v. [read post]
10 Dec 2021, 8:25 pm
Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 11:29 am
On this particular question, the Chief Justice’s judgement in Grant v. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 4:39 am
City of Miami and Wells Fargo & Co. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2008, 10:48 am
Kevin Hill (UPN, 2004). [read post]
22 May 2016, 7:17 am
For example, the Supreme Court held in its 1985 Harper & Row v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 6:04 am
R. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm
Kelo v. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 9:47 am
Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 2004. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Harper, No. 05-10247 "A conviction and defendants' sentences for conspiracy, drug possession, and weapons offenses are affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) admitting testimonial hearsay; 2) excluding the conviction records of a critical state witness; 3) refusing to ask requested voir dire questions of the jury; 4) using a conviction in this case as a prior conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement; and 5) imposing an unreasonable sentence. [read post]
