Search for: "Maine v. Miller"
Results 1 - 20
of 440
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Aug 2007, 6:03 am
Robert Miller (Lewis and Clark) writes a nice and long post on State of Maine v. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 2:19 pm
In Miller v. [read post]
12 May 2016, 1:45 pm
The main case was Hofmann v. [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 9:04 pm
Smith of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who presided over United States v. [read post]
18 Oct 2009, 8:54 am
" That is the implication of Parker v. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 6:56 am
By Ronald Miller, J.D. [read post]
23 May 2007, 8:55 am
Miller. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 8:13 am
Johnson v. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 7:42 am
By Ronald Miller, J.D. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 5:40 am
Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 9:00 pm
That truth undercuts one of the main rationales for American Pipe's tolling doctrine.So: "Hear, hear! [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 6:19 am
The case is Miller v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 2:15 pm
The Supreme Court has docketed a cert petition in Miller v. [read post]
21 Nov 2015, 8:39 am
In a 17 page order, Judge Miller denied Tito’s motion for summary judgement in Hofmann v. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:00 pm
The lawsuit does not involve provisional ballots, signature matches or counting delays—logistical aspects of modern elections that are increasingly subject to legal dispute—but instead attacks the basic substantive rules that Maine law uses to determine who wins Congressional elections.The crux of the legal challenge is the permissibility of Maine’s Ranked-Choice Voting system, which the state’s voters adopted via a citizen initiative in 2016 and reaffirmed… [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 11:39 am
In Toyukak v. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 3:46 am
Miller (reported here). [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 8:29 am
The inquiry is always in two stages, namely computation and distribution;”iv) The House of Lords in White v White [2001] AC 596 and Miller v Miller and McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618 has given guidance as to the approach and principles to be applied in the exercise of the statutory discretion conferred by the MCA 1973.v) That guidance makes it clear that the court is to have regard to, and apply, the relevant statutory provisions.vi)… [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am
Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 11:31 am
CARPENTER V. [read post]
