Search results for: "2" (3543 results)
officials of the Executive Branch.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218 (1995) (citing Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409). At the
0805001946, 2010 WL 547394, at 2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2010)); Fuentes v. Choate, No. 24-cv-01377, 2024 WL 2978285, at 13 (D. Colo. June 13, 2024
v. Gray 1900 2 QB 36 at 40 (Eng.))). × See, e.g., Robert Post, Public Accommodations and the First Amendment: 303 Creative and “Pure Speech,” 2023
ASS’N 2-3, http://www.icoca.ch/assets/icoc-aoa_english2.pdf (last visited Feb. 13, 2014). 25. Id. A General Assembly and a Secretariat body assist the
however, is that King’s 1. Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010). 2. See H.R. 177, 115th Cong. (2017); see also Press Release, Steve King, King
§ 355(j)(2)(A)(v), (j)(4)(G) (2006)); 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.94(a)(8), 314.127(a)(7) (2013). 15. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2573, 2575. 16. Id. at 2575. 17
moral 23. See supra note 3. 24. See RONALD DWORKIN, The Model of Rules I, in TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY 14 (1978). 25. Katz, supra note 2, at 1479
acslaw.org/sites/default/files/pdf/ACS%20Open%20Letter%20to%20President-Elect.pdf [http://perma.cc/75TN-THPG]. 76. Id. 77. Id. at 2. 78. Id. at 3
arbitration clause 1. 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1748 (2011). 2. Id. 3. Id. at 1746 (quoting Doctor’s Assocs. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996)). 4
a legal strategy for advocates to (1) force federal agencies to follow more democratic processes and (2) combat the traditional deference accorded to