Search for: "People v. Holder"
Results 21 - 40
of 2,842
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 pm
" (NSBA v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 12:47 pm
Concluding that it4 TRUMP v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 9:51 am
Term Limits, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm
Thus, recognition of the right to same-sex marriage not only does not harm people who oppose same-sex marriage; it affirmatively benefits them.Expanding the circle of right-holders in other ways can also benefit existing right-holders who might think of themselves as harmed by that expansion. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 2:48 pm
Under Lorillard v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 12:28 am
All rights reserved,” denoting the exclusive rights of the copyright holders, the Andy Warhol Foundation, to the image, and Campbell Soup Co. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
La Rose v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 11:29 am
”); and Rotkiske v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
Then, in Lexmark v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
Ctr., 222 AD3d 1160; Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, 221 AD3d 1222; and Matter of Holder v Office for People with Dev. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
Ctr., 222 AD3d 1160; Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, 221 AD3d 1222; and Matter of Holder v Office for People with Dev. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 12:46 pm
Kirtz and Murray v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:54 am
The case of Ellison v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:54 am
The case of Ellison v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, several or all of the Justices might be inclined to decide the case on some ground that doesn’t require the Court to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to be President, if such an “off-ramp” solution is legally available. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 2:59 pm
Graham v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 1:37 pm
Property v. property: TM v. domain names; land v. chattels; IP v. consumer goods. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
For present purposes, however, the important point to understand is that Trump’s primary merits argument, to which he devotes the first 13 pages of the Argument section of his brief (pp. 20-33), concerns only the second, middle “Officials Clause,” which identifies the current and former office-holders to whom Section 3 potentially applies, rather than the government positions that an insurrectionist or rebel is ineligible to occupy going forward. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 2:53 pm
Diaz v. [read post]