Search results for: "2000" (1874 results)
COURT (2000). 7. See A. Christopher Bryant & Timothy J. Simeone, Remanding to Congress: The Supreme Court’s New “On the Record” Constitutional Review of
; Nolan M. McCarty, Presidential Pork: Executive Veto Power and Distributive Politics, 94 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 117 (2000); Nolan McCarty, Proposal Rights
www .propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-Californias-redistricting-commission. 45. RICHARD HASEN, THE VOTING WARS: FROM FLORIDA 2000 TO THE
L.J. 535 (2000); Dan T. Coenen & Paul J. Heald, Means/Ends Analysis in Copyright Law: Eldred v. Ashcroft in One Act, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 99 (2002
REV. L. & ECON. 127, 127 (2000) (“ That repeat offenders are punished more severely . . . is a generally accepted practice . . . .” ); A. Mitchell
themselves “of constitutional dimension.” United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 307 (2000) (quoting Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 88 (1988
resources can reach only those who are interested in receiving their 1. See, e.g., Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 398 (2000) (Stevens
omitted). 29. See, e.g., Mastracchio v. Vose, No. CA 98-372T, 2000 WL 303307, at *4, *13 (D.R.I. Nov. 2, 2000), aff’d, 274 F.3d 590 (1st Cir. 2001
2007); Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cnty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2000). For a thoughtful, recent argument that one can
2000)); CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 33-840 to -842 (1997) (providing that a fair price, as defined by the statute, must be paid in any control transaction). 6