Search for: "Wilkinson v. Martin" Results 1 - 20 of 38
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2024, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
In his recent book Collision of Power, Martin Baron, who was executive editor of the Washington Post throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, takes a strong stand against this trend. [read post]
23 May 2017, 12:40 pm by Jordan Brunner, Chris Mirasola
Looking to Coleman v Tennessee and Lee v Madigan, Wilkinson further argued that statutes should be read against granting military jurisdiction in criminal cases, particularly capital cases, and that no such intention should be ascribed to Congress without clear and direct language to that effect. [read post]
18 May 2016, 11:25 am
Weiss, Ethical Quandaries in War Zones, When Mass Atrocity Prevention Fails Mary Kaldor, How Peace Agreements Undermine the Rule of Law in New War Settings Rogelio Madrueño-Aguilar, Human Security and the New Global Threats: Discourse, Taxonomy and Implications Todd Sandler & Justin George, Military Expenditure Trends for 1960–2014 and What They Reveal Moira V. [read post]
29 Sep 2004, 12:28 pm
Sept. 8, 2004) (en banc) (upholding the Guidelines) (Wilkinson, J., Shedd, J., Widener, J., concurring; Motz, J., Michael, J., Gregory, J., dissenting); United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 1:12 am by Kouros Sadeghi-Nejad
On the morning of April 27th , 2023, climate activists Timothy Martin and Joanna Smith of the Declare Emergency organization were indicted by a federal grand jury for their protest at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 10:18 am
(See Corley v Burger King Corp., 56 F3d 709, 710 [5th Cir 1995]; Martin v Savage Truck Line, 121 F Supp 417, 419 [DDC 1954]). [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 3:51 pm
" But that's only 2/3 of the story.Judge Wilkinson dissented. [read post]
31 May 2007, 12:49 pm
Although not cited in Martin, the Court had recently applied the fornication statutes, in Mitchem v. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 6:52 pm by INFORRM
Furthermore, Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Pepper v Hart said that Article IX was ‘a provision of the highest constitutional importance’ which ‘should not be narrowly construed’. [read post]