Search for: "Smith v. Nixon"
Results 61 - 80
of 104
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2021, 6:21 am
So will amicus briefs, including one from me and other federal courts scholars (Erwin Chemerinsky, Barry Friedman, Leah Litman, and Fred Smith). [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 6:43 am
Finally, in Smith v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 3:26 pm
In Ring v. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 9:30 pm
His dissertation was “The Smith Act and the Communist Party: A Study in Political Justice. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 11:57 am
Smith licks his lips and drives him straight down the ground for four, before both AB and Badger Nixon miss a vicious in-cutter. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
” Sorrell v. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 10:59 am
Smith. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 11:33 am
And as a legal matter, Brown v. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 7:42 am
Smith, which was argued in October. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 6:29 am
Ass’n v. [read post]
31 May 2010, 11:57 am
DLA Piper has taken seven lawyers in various practices from Nixon Peabody. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 6:04 am
Smith, which was argued in October.... [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 11:19 am
In December, Smith asked for 21 days between the Court granting cert and oral argument (per the U.S. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 9:30 pm
We asked the 2018-19 Davis Fellows the following question: how has your time at the Davis Center led to new insights about the reach and limits of law and legalities? [read post]
14 Feb 2023, 12:33 pm
Nixon, 263 N.C. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 5:19 pm
(in support of petitioners) Docket: 08-1244 Title: Nixon, Governor of Missouri, et al. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 12:58 pm
Finally, there was the Google/YouTube v. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
That argument is based on a line of civil cases establishing that presidents can’t be held liable via monetary damages for their official actions—more specifically, as the Supreme Court held in 1981 in Nixon v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 9:18 am
Walter Nixon v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 7:30 am
It should be noted that Texas made no effort to comply with the one person-one vote mandate of Baker v. [read post]
