The New York Times / States Tel. & Tel. Co. / Mountain Timber Co. / Case / The Court / /
Country
Jordan / United States / Ireland / /
Facility
Rick’s Cafe / University of Missouri School / Kent State University / Yale University / /
IndustryTerm
state law / substantive law / martial law / apportionment law / constitutional law / law professors / balloting systems / /
Organization
Court Versus Legislature / United States Supreme Court / Representative Government / Baker Court / House of Representatives / CORNELL / Warren Court / Yale University / Senate / Congress / National Guard / FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY / Rehnquist Court / Florida Supreme Court / University of Missouri School of Law / Kent State University / Pepperdine University School of Law / /
Person
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY / Peter Shane / Peter M. Shane / Harold Krent / Tracey George / SHANE ROBERT / Did Bush / Trish / Gus Tyler / Alexander M. Bickel / Jo Desha Lucas / L. REV / Walter Nixon / Charles L. Black / Breyer / Souter / Harlan / Robert G. McCloskey / JOHN HART ELY / Professors Shane / Frankfurter / Sanford Levinson / ROBERT J. PUSHAW / JR. / Professors Krent / Harold J. Krent / Grant Nelson / Samuel Issacharoff / /
PoliticalEvent
federal elections / PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION / /
Position
attorney / federal judge / President / Harper / Professor / executive powers / representative / Judge / /
ProvinceOrState
Ohio / Virginia / Oregon / Michigan / Tennessee / Rhode Island / Montana / Florida / Georgia / /
PublishedMedium
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW / The New York Times / /
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DISPUTE, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE, AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: A REPLY TO PROFESSORS KRENT AND SHANE ROBERT J. PUSHAW, JR.* I. BUSH V. GORE: BAKER V. CARR WITH A CONSERVATIVE TWIST ....