Search results for: "2" (2803 results)
Activities, 27 J. LEGAL STUD. 245, 253-55 (1998). 166. See R.W. Apple Jr., A High Point in 2 Decades of U.S. Might, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 10, 2003, at A1
107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1541 note (Supp. III 2003)). 41. HOWELL, supra note 13, at 2. President Bush’s creation of a
106. Act of Oct. 2, 1999, § 2, 1999 Cal. Legis. Serv. ch. 588 (West) (codified at CAL. FAM. CODE § 297(a) (West 2012)). On domestic partnership
101 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1332 n.2 (1988). See, e.g., Suzanne B. Goldberg, Equality Without Tiers, 77 S. Cal. L. Rev. 481, 554-57 (2004) (ca… See, e.g
reversed its decision on claim (2) and declined to decide claim (1). See United States v. Kungys, 793 F.2d 516, 516-17 (3d Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court
§ 2, cl. 2; see Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, 915 F. 3d 838 (1st Cir. 2019), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2735 (U.S. June 20
at 20: Reviving the Jury’s Role in Sentencing, 99 N.C. L. Rev. 1189, 1192 (2021). Table E-2—Federal Probation System Statistical Tables for the
Court’s revitalization of the Eleventh Amendment and, with it, the concept of state sovereign immunity, and (2) on the Court’s increasing restriction of
Amendment: (1) “statements on matters of public concern that fail to contain a ‘provably false factual connotation’”; and (2) “‘rhetorical hyperbole
Myths from Historical Realities, 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1695, 1713 (2012). 2 Calendar of the Close Rolls, Richard II, at 92 (Nov. 2, 1381, Westminster