The Supreme Court granted motions that divided the oral arguments for several cases challenging provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs were granted 60 minutes to argue provisions relating to Title I and Section 213, and 50 minutes for the remainder of the challenged provisions. A motion by other plaintiffs was granted 10 minutes for arguments. Motions by other plaintiffs were denied.
The Supreme Court granted motions that divided the oral arguments for several cases challenging provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs were granted 60 minutes to argue provisions relating to Title I and Section 213, and 50 minutes for the remainder of the challenged provisions. A motion by other plaintiffs was granted 10 minutes for arguments. Motions by other plaintiffs were denied.
Copyright:
Public Domain
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The Supreme Court granted motions that divided the oral arguments for several cases challenging provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs were granted 60 minutes to argue provisions relating to Title I and Section 213, and 50 minutes for the remainder of the challenged provisions. A motion by other plaintiffs was granted 10 minutes for arguments. Motions by other plaintiffs were denied.
Copyright:
Public Domain
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
v. Federal Election Commission et al. No. 02-1727.
Supreme Court of United States.
August 4, 2003. 1
Appeal from the D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 911.]
Motion for divided argument of plaintiffs in Nos. 02-1674, 02-1727, 02-1733,
02-1734, 02-1753, 02-1755, and 02-1756 granted, except that 60 minutes are allotted for argument on Title I and 213 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and 50 minutes are allotted on the remainder of the challenged provisions. Motion of Emily Echols et al. and Barret Austin O'Brock for divided argument granted limited to 10 minutes for plaintiffs. Motions for divided argument of plaintiffs in Nos. 02-1675, 02-1740, and 02-1747 denied. Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.
Clifton C. Tang v. Appellate Division of The New York Supreme Court, First Department, and Honorable Justices Aron Steuer, 487 F.2d 138, 1st Cir. (1974)
John Leather v. Michael Ten Eyck, Individually, Thomas Lindert, Individually, Carmine Restivo, Jr., Individually, Daniel Stevens, Individually, Robert Thoubboron, Individually, and the County of Putnam, New York, 180 F.3d 420, 2d Cir. (1999)
Ann Eliza Tranberg v. John Tranberg. Appeals of Russell B. Johnson, in Nos. 71-1142, 1143. in The Matter of The Guardianship of Ann Eliza Tranberg, Etc, 456 F.2d 173, 3rd Cir. (1972)