Search for: "United States v. Baca"
Results 1 - 20
of 49
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2023, 9:28 am
United States, the three men ask the justices to reinstate their constitutional challenge. [read post]
20 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
Baca. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 4:19 am
Cooley and Nobles v. [read post]
5 Dec 2020, 4:21 pm
Baca v. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 12:23 pm
Consider the recent example of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 9:01 pm
Washington and Colorado Department of State v Baca—unanimously upholding the power of a state to punish and replace members of the state’s contingent in the so-called Electoral College who fail to cast their votes for the candidate who won the state’s popular-election contest for President—weren’t particularly persuasive. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 9:01 pm
Washington and Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 3:08 pm
Baca, however, yielded a one sentence per curiam order: The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reversed for the reasons stated in Chiafalo v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 7:33 am
Washington—and the per curiam opinion in Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 10:04 am
Baca. [read post]
1 Jun 2020, 9:51 am
Baca and Chiafalo v. [read post]
28 May 2020, 7:44 am
Washington and Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
21 May 2020, 2:17 pm
Do they hold a "Public Trust under the United States"? [read post]
15 May 2020, 4:30 am
("The people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States.'"); United States v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:46 am
” At Vox, Ian Millhiser observes that in a concurrence last week in United States v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 10:11 am
Washington and Colorado Dept. of State v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 9:32 am
Washington and Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 8:08 am
Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found Colorado guilty in Baca v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 7:00 am
Baca. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 4:03 pm
Oklahoma 19-46, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. [read post]
