Search for: "King v. Elrod"
Results 1 - 20
of 23
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2019, 7:08 am
* * * *The Supreme Court explained, in the second of its ACA cases (King v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 2:56 pm
King; Judge E. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 7:00 am
In King v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 4:31 am
” [FN: King v. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 7:39 am
However, that court left the act in place pending appeal (Texas v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 10:02 pm
Judge King dissented. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 6:00 am
Engelhardt, and Carolyn Dineen King. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 11:16 pm
Judge King dissented. [read post]
20 Aug 2022, 12:54 pm
Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1989) (Smith, J., joined by Politz and King, JJ.). [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 5:30 am
At least, given Roberts’ King v. [read post]
2 Jun 2018, 4:12 pm
.; JOSEPH ONWUTEAKA,individually,Defendants - AppellantsAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of TexasUSDC No. 1:14-CV-324Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM:*Joseph Onwuteaka is a lawyer and the sole owner of the Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka, P.C. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 8:09 am
The panel hearing the case (announced this morning) consists of Senior Judge Carolyn Dineen King, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Judge Kurt D. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 5:41 pm
Judge King dissented. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 2:19 am
The first is in Rodriguez v. [read post]
10 Jul 2022, 4:51 pm
The panel for this argument included Judges King, Elrod, and Southwick. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 3:30 pm
Judge King dissented. [read post]
Symposium: “Schrödinger’s tax” is dead – and the command to buy health insurance is unconstitutional
9 Nov 2020, 6:28 am
In Seven-Sky v. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:01 pm
While there is a so-called “political question” doctrine, first established in Luther v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 6:00 am
Engelhardt, and Carolyn Dineen King. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 5:55 pm
In her majority opinion, Judge Jennifer Elrod ruled that the individual mandate is now unconstitutional because, with the repeal of the attached penalty, it can no longer be considered a tax, which is the only reason why it was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2012 decision in NFIB v. [read post]
