Search for: "United States v. Felix" Results 201 - 220 of 253
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2017, 8:29 am by Andrew Hamm
United States) “The Boldest Moves: When and How to Make Them” (focusing on the power grab in Bush v. [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 9:39 am by Ronald Collins
But most Americans now agree with Warren that the United States in the 1950s and 1960s desperately needed a levelheaded form of constitutional ethics in order to bring the legacy of Jim Crow to an end. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 3:29 pm
Freedus responded by referring to a Fifth Circuit case (United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 12:56 pm by Frank Pasquale
The approval came less than one month after a researcher in the United States was sentenced to 57 months in prison for falsifying her own Ketek data. . . . [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 9:35 am by Ronald Collins
Justice Felix Frankfurter thought that it was nonsense, but the Harvard Law Review soon adopted Pritchett’s methods in its annual review of the Court’s term – a statistical analysis that has been overtaken by the “stat packs” of SCOTUSblog. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 4:30 am
"  And thus we have an introduction to today’s case, Tersigni v. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 4:01 pm by INFORRM
Nicklin J found that, because Ms Murray’s tweet was stated as fact, it had one meaning; the defence of truth failed. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
United States, on the President’s removal power, which was “severely undercut[]” by a unanimous Court less than a decade later in Humphrey’s Executor (p. 416). [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 6:14 am by Andrew Hamm
The day before the Court released its 1919 opinion in United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
  Will he lead the “transformation” that the United States desperately needs? [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Quoting an article by Felix Frankfurter from 1916, and also citing Ernst Freund, Post states that Progressives had repudiated Lochner v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 7:52 am by Joel R. Brandes
 Family Court Act § 412(2)(d) was amended to read as follows:  (d) "income cap" shall mean up to and including one hundred  eighty-four  thousand  dollars  of  the  payor's  annual  income; provided, however, beginning March  first,  two thousand twenty and every two years thereafter, the income cap amount shall increase by the sum of the average annual percentage changes  in  the  consumer … [read post]