Search for: "S. H. V. United States"
Results 61 - 80
of 5,103
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm
v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 12:48 pm
., State v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:00 pm
Finally, as the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 8:20 pm
But Wilson neglects that Delegate Jack H. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 9:47 am
The momentous decision was handed down by United States District Court Judge George H. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm
H/t: H-Law.In the New Yorker: "The Ghost of Bush v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
[This is the second installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:15 pm
Rather, where a court finds that an arrest is made in breach of the Charter, it will be necessary to consider such a breach in the s. 24(2) analysis, including the impacts on the accused’s Charter-protected interests (see R. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 10:05 am
Court of Appeals decision in United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:58 pm
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
Colorado’s stated objectives are, instead, entirely about (in then-Judge Gorsuch’s words) the preservation of the integrity and “practical functioning” of the Colorado primary election process. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:12 am
United States. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 6:29 pm
” 395 U.S. at 447; see also Counterman v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 11:29 am
Recall that in 2018, in Pereira v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:21 am
Bollinger (2003)(overruled in the Harvard and UNC case):[H]igh-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, “[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,” a “highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps … is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm
Scalia, J., thought Presidents were "officers of the United States" (Lawfare). [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 1:39 pm
Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 9:03 am
R.4(h) provides the additional guidance that a company can be served “at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i). [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 3:30 am
More than a decade ago, a court aptly explained the problematic perceptions that flow from the Commission’s practice of settling without admissions and prohibiting denials: [H]ere an agency of the United States is saying, in effect, “Although we claim that these defendants have done terrible things, they refuse to admit it and we do not propose to prove it, but will simply resort to gagging their right to deny it. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 7:07 am
In particular, the Court deferred to the BIA’s narrow interpretation of INA §203(h)(3), 8 U.S.C. [read post]
