Search for: "Howard Bashman"
Results 321 - 340
of 790
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Oct 2007, 7:33 am
Howard Bashman of How Appealing has posted a very useful article on the Supreme Court's cert review process. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 8:14 am
Famed appellate blawger Howard Bashman and I will be on a joint panel that starts at 4 pm. [read post]
4 May 2007, 7:49 am
" The other distinguished panelists (or I should say "the other panelists, who are distinguished") are Ann Althouse, Howard Bashman, Jason Czarnezki, Rick Garnett, and Eugene Volokh. [read post]
15 Dec 2006, 4:40 pm
Howard Bashman interviewed the Juvenalian jurist a few years ago; the Globe adds a well-deserved profile. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 9:55 am
Howard Bashman has spotted a story in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger on Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Leslie Southwick, "Senate panel sets vote on judge. [read post]
11 Aug 2007, 6:52 am
Just like Howard Bashman, I spent Friday night watching live a terrific baseball game between NL East rivals. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 9:03 am
Howard Bashman has compiled several reports about the selection process for the next Attorney General in this How Appealing post. [read post]
5 Mar 2007, 2:30 am
Bashman published here as a special to Law.com March 5, 2007. [read post]
31 May 2017, 10:09 am
As far as I know only three people on the Internet have succeeded at doing it: Glenn Reynolds, Matt Drudge, and Howard Bashman. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 10:06 am
Thanks to Howard Bashman, I just stumbled across this "in-chambers" opinion filed yesterday by Chief Judge Easterbook, explaining why he rejected as untimely an amicus brief filed in support of a petition for rehearing en banc in the Seventh Circuit [disclaimer: I know nothing about the case on which rehearing has been sought, and have not read the briefs]. [read post]
7 May 2007, 5:08 pm
" My fellow panelists included Christine Hurt, Ann Althouse, Howard Bashman, Rick Garnett, and Eugene Volokh. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 4:01 am
" (Howard Bashman has the link and thoughtful early commentary comes from Jack Balkin and Orin Kerr and Dan Solove.) [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 9:22 am
Howard Bashman, the source of every significant bit of news (meaning he never includes SJ) online, provides this very funny, yet very true, article by District of Oregon Judge Michael W. [read post]
4 May 2018, 4:54 am
Having now paused, I suspect that How Appealing is a nice subtle reference to the founder’s name: Howard Bashman, and I couldn’t resist emailing to see if I could get confirmation from you that this is correct. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 5:30 am
As Howard Bashman reports (along with many others, such as The Legal Intelligencer), yesterday two separate panels on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit simultaneously issued opinions in separate cases in which public-school students created prank MySpace pages about school administrators, were disciplined, and then brought suit alleging violations of their free speech rights. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 3:27 pm
July 12, 2012) (thanks to Howard Bashman (How Appealing) for the pointer), which suggests that lawyer Evan Stone’s chutzpah (for more on that, see the post about the original sanctions decision) is matched by his willingness to waive legal arguments by failing to raise them at the proper time: On appeal, Stone argues that the sanctions cannot be justified under Rules 26 and 45 or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or the inherent power of the district court. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 11:45 am
Thanks to Howard Bashman (How Appealing) for the pointer. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 7:41 am
Here is the intro from Howard Bashman's (from How Appealing) comment against the rule:The observation “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” properly appears toinform this Committee’s approach to amending the Federal Rules ofAppellate Procedure. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 3:52 pm
Howard Bashman noted two such cases from the U.S. [read post]
19 Oct 2006, 6:24 am
In today's Wall Street Journal [thanks to Howard Bashman for the link], John Yoo correctly emphasizes that the primary impact of the Military Commissions Act is, as Jack has explained, to attempt to eliminate any judicial checks on the Executive's conduct of the conflict against Al Qaeda: Congress and the president did not take the court's power grab lying down. [read post]
