Search for: "King v. Howard*" Results 21 - 40 of 222
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2008, 1:30 pm
Not surprisingly, yesterday’s decision in DC v. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 4:00 pm by Old Fox
He was received by the pope with marked courtesy and was appointed grand penitentiary of England, but his argument, if discussed, did not lead to any practical decision of the divorce question.In 1532 he was sent to Germany, officially as ambassador to the emperor Charles V but with instructions to establish contact with the Lutheran princes. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 9:19 am by Jeralyn
King, concerning exigent circumstances (lower court opinion) US v. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 12:49 pm by Linda McClain
June 12th is Loving Day, a holiday celebrating the landmark case Loving v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 2:39 am by Amy Howe
Andrew Hamm of this blog rounded up early coverage and commentary on yesterday’s decision in King v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 2:54 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on King v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:23 am by Amy Howe
Other coverage of and commentary on the Court focus on two of the Court’ highest-profile cases this Term:  King v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 6:26 am by James Bickford
” Andrew Pincus, who represented the petitioner in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 4:02 am
Thomas Sanni, then employed in a grade 27 project director position at Kings Park Psychiatric Center, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 2:48 am by INFORRM
King LJ, giving judgment for the Court of Appeal, held that the order (made by HHJ Hess) had been made on “the slimmest of evidence“. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 4:13 am by Amy Howe
Next week’s oral arguments in King v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 7:12 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in Puerto Rico v. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 1:05 am
Co. v Johnson’s Publ’g Co., 473 F.2d 901, 902 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP § 1207.01. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
  The short version is that it’s a stone-cold loser, not least because it would have absurd ramifications (such as that it would mean Jefferson Davis would’ve been disqualified from serving in virtually any federal or state office except the presidency and vice-presidency, and that the Foreign Emoluments Clause wouldn’t prohibit the President, Vice-President, and members of Congress from accepting titles, offices, gifts or emoluments from foreign states,… [read post]