Search results for: "n" (3967 results)
Commerce, and Inherently Public Property, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 711, 717 n.26, 721 (1986); see id. at 717 & n.26 (noting the “distinction between a
n.1 (citing 33 Hen. VIII, c. 20). Justice Marshall notes that “this law was uniformly condemned. The ‘cruel and inhumane Law lived not long, but was
& Conventions 19 n.66 (Nw. Law & Econ. Research Paper No. 02-8, 2002). See Brooks & Rose, supra note 43, at 125. Brooks and Rose note that “the costs of
Seattle v. Trump, No. 17-497-RAJ, 2017 WL 4700144, at 5 n.3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 19, 2017). The court further noted that President Trump declared (a) “that
relationship between the two, see Lessig, supra note 6, at 328 n.5. Lessig has been prolific in his advocacy and scholarship. For his most recent
Office of Legal Counsel, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1448, 1456 n.31 (2010) (“There is actually some uncertainty whether the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinions are
Karl N. Llewellyn, Some Realism About Realism—Responding to Dean Pound, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 1222 (1931). See, e.g., id. at 1237 (noting that realists
that likely would n… See cases cited supra notes 69, 102-104, in which the Court upheld regulations that likely would not have survived an across-the
Pasco Cty., 915 F.3d 1292, 1298 n.8 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Reich for his definition of new property); George Washington Univ. v. District of
Patents Dev. Corp., 283 U.S. 27, 34 n.4 (1931) (noting that attempting to use a patent to unreasonably restrain commerce is “not only beyond the scope of