Search for: "People v. Roberts" Results 101 - 120 of 7,521
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
 This claim is, of course, deeply counterintuitive, and it would be very awkward, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to explain to the American people that Section 3 doesn’t apply to someone who’s been President because although that person held an “office,” it wasn’t an office “of the United States. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 12:50 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
  This is also the underlying constitutional question in the Supreme Court's Moore v. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
The Commitment Rule is a further development of the proposal we submitted to the Secretariat of UNCITRAL Working Group V (Insolvency) in an open letter on September 14, 2023. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm by Josh Blackman
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 9:01 am by Just Security
”  South Africa had argued that the imposition of such a requirement would follow the model the Court had used in the provisional measures phase of Ukraine v. [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 3:12 pm by Adam White
(Indeed, the Roberts Court has seemed uniquely attuned to the need for steadier administration for years.) [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
On 1 December 2023, Jay J handed down judgment in Dyson v MGN Ltd [2023] EWHC 3092 (KB). [read post]
20 Jan 2024, 9:24 pm by Norman L. Eisen
In the only order granting such a motion, Judge Robert C. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by Noah Brown
In the arguments, the justices focused little on the facts of the current case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 3:58 pm by Amy Howe
ShareIt has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 5:20 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
The rationale for the “meet and confer” requirement was discussed in depth in the NPD of Jones (Robert) v. [read post]