Search for: "People v. Nixon"
Results 101 - 120
of 618
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2007, 10:40 am
These people should have come forward sooner, and they should now urgently consider coming forward to testify publicly - and with documents. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
Nixon (the president must provide documentary evidence in response to a subpoena) and Clinton v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 2:17 pm
To be sure, Nixon v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 6:20 am
Nixon. [read post]
29 May 2007, 11:51 pm
Darby and Wickard v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 9:30 am
This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.The ERA continued to be introduced to every subsequent congress after its failure in 1923, until 1972, when the amendment was passed in the House, Senate, and was signed by President Richard Nixon. [read post]
18 Jan 2020, 4:45 am
Humphrey, to switch to Nixon if that were necessary to deprive [George] Wallace of a majority. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 6:25 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 1:15 pm
Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 5:40 am
Based on the foregoing, Lindenwood’s factual allegations fail to support the element of proximate cause (see Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d at 149-150; Gersh v Nixon Peabody LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 30363[U], 2017 NY Misc LEXIS 682, * 18-19 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]; Caso v Sklarin, 2016 NY Misc LEXIS 6863, * 12-13 [Sup Ct, NY County May 26, 2016, No. 159192/2015]). [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:40 pm
In sharp contrast with Nixon v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 5:19 pm
Miranda v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 8:15 am
The Title X program dates back to 1970 when, at President Nixon’s urging, a bipartisan Congress enacted it to improve access to family planning and to make birth control like “the pill” and IUDs available to all regardless of their income. [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 6:43 am
The return of judicial discretion with the United Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 11:02 am
Board of Education or how we got to Obergefell v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
Frankly, I am not sure there is a right answer to the question rather reasonably and informed people of good faith, certainly such people whom I respect of that nature, can hold diametrically opposed opinions. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 1:34 pm
I know one place that Keefe won’t be getting a job: Nixon Peabody. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 10:07 am
Ohio, as explained in my brief in Utah v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 9:00 pm
Also, it is not clear to me if Judge Kavanaugh does or does not believe U.S. v Nixon (the 8-0 holding that ended Nixon’s presidency, forcing him to provide prosecutors incriminating secretly recorded conversations) was correctly decided.My second general point is a very important process matter. [read post]
