Search results for: "At" (3346 results)
previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” D.C. Law 20-279, § 2(f) (codified at D.C. Code § 7- 2509.11(1)(A)). “[O]ther
has already argued. At the same time, however, requiring agencies to attend to every claim of reliance by every downstream beneficiary would increase
of Supreme Court attention and statutory law is of concern. It leaves rights at the mercy of each agency’s regulatory regime. As the Court
due process have paid little attention to this 14. ELY, supra note 1, at 15-16. 15. Id. at 15. 16. See, e.g., Michael Les Benedict, Laissez
Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999); see also Franchina, 881 F.3d at 54 (describing Higgins as “a nearly twenty-year-old case in which
it would need majority support. This further insulates the pocket trigger from political attack. 235. See McDonald, supra note 19, at 267-69
blows of extraordinary, destabilizing misfortune. But, in the contemporary United States, has law succeeded at even these fundamental tasks? It has
that protec- tion. 62 At about the same time, the FTC retreated from attempts to go beyond antitrust-based condemnation of the advertising of
2012). 24. 549 U.S. 497 (2007). 25. Freeman & Vermeule, supra note 4, at 52; see id. (defining “expertise-forcing” as the “attempt by courts to
the scarcity of rental housing may lead to higher homeownership rates than are optimal for employment-related mobility, id. at 86-87, but attributes