Search for: "South Dakota v. Dole"
Results 41 - 60
of 100
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
One difficulty is that, as the Supreme Court stated in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 4:04 pm
This is what the Court did in South Dakota v. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 10:15 am
Since the relevant part of the ACA is not a statute that offers conditional funds to state governments, but only private citizens, none of the rules laid out in conditional spending cases such as South Dakota v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 11:10 am
In in South [Dakota] v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 10:43 am
” And he quickly brought up a prior precedent (South Dakota v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
App. 2003); Dole Food Co. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 6:59 am
This piece originally ran on TomDispatch. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 8:20 am
Tellinghuisen, the Attorney General for the state of South Dakota, whose argument in South Dakota v. [read post]
8 May 2013, 9:01 am
At oral argument in NFIB v. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 6:36 am
On January 23, 2013, a group of major universities and technology transfer offices filed an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to affirm the Federal Circuit in Monsanto v. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 6:01 pm
(Perhaps South Dakota v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 7:54 pm
Overrule South Dakota v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 11:14 am
The Court relied on, seemingly modified, and strengthened at least two existing elements of the test for conditional spending articulated in South Dakota v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 2:37 pm
The Court relied on, seemingly modified, and strengthened at least two existing elements of the test for conditional spending articulated in South Dakota v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 2:30 pm
The Court relied on, seemingly modified, and strengthened at least two existing elements of the test for conditional spending articulated in South Dakota v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 9:19 am
” And even as far back as Gibbons v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 5:50 am
Here are the questions I've put together for teaching The Health Care Cases, NFIB v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 8:16 am
That is how the challengers could so effectively argue that if the Medicaid expansion did not run afoul of South Dakota v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 2:31 pm
Davis (1937) and South Dakota v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 3:31 pm
” The Supreme Court had indicated that “coercive” conditional grants are unconstitutional as far back as the 1930s, and reiterated that point in South Dakota v. [read post]
