Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), follows up on the Supreme Court's 2011 case of the same name in which it had reversed the Third Circuit and concluded that both individuals and states can bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to federal law. The case was remanded to the Third Circuit, for a decision on the merits, which again ruled ...
Bond v. United States , 564 U.S. 211 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, just like states , may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law.
Bond v United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court Fourth Amendment case that applied the ruling of Minnesota v.
The next two are the same case. In 2011 the Supreme Court decided Bond had standing to bring a suit before a Federal Court. The subsequent decision of the lower court, after the suit was heard, came before the Supreme Court on appeal in 2014. Bond v. United States (2011), a United States Supreme Court decision involving individual standing ...
Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. with United States v.Bankers Trust Co. 294 U.S. 240 (1935): The bearer of a $22.50 bond coupon of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad demanded payment of $38.10, the value of the coupon's gold obligation based on the statutory price of gold.
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision [1] [2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential ...
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira is a federal criminal case against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States; Walt Nauta, his personal aide and valet; and Mar-a-Lago maintenance chief Carlos De Oliveira.
Bond sued in federal court, but the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia upheld the House, with a three-judge panel concluding 2–1 that Bond's remarks exceeded criticism of national policy and that he could not in good faith take an oath to support the state and federal constitutions.