0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
86 просмотров10 страниц
U.s. District court in New Hampshire denied plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counts I, II, III and IV. David perry: plaintiffs' reliance on ex parte young, and its progeny, is misplaced. He says Ex Parte Young Does not Apply to plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause claims. Perry: if a state official's action violates the constitution, a federal court should dismiss it.
Исходное описание:
Оригинальное название
Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Objection to MTD
U.s. District court in New Hampshire denied plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counts I, II, III and IV. David perry: plaintiffs' reliance on ex parte young, and its progeny, is misplaced. He says Ex Parte Young Does not Apply to plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause claims. Perry: if a state official's action violates the constitution, a federal court should dismiss it.
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
U.s. District court in New Hampshire denied plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counts I, II, III and IV. David perry: plaintiffs' reliance on ex parte young, and its progeny, is misplaced. He says Ex Parte Young Does not Apply to plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause claims. Perry: if a state official's action violates the constitution, a federal court should dismiss it.
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd