Rodearmel v. Clinton, 177 L. Ed. 2d 300 (2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Rodearmel v. Clinton, 177 L. Ed. 2d 300 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Springston (ca8, 2011-08-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Springston
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Zuniga, 579 F.3d 845, 850-51 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 3384 , 177 L.Ed.2d 305 (2010) (defendant in Springston’s position lacks standing to challenge SORNA under the non-delegation doctrine); United States v. Baccam, 562 F.3d 1197, 1198-1200 (8th Cir.2009) (notice of state registration requirements satisfies the “knowingly” element); United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709, 717 (8th Cir.2009) (§ 16913 is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause); United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912, 921 (8th Cir.2…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. William Mefford
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Zuniga, 579 F.3d 845, 850-51 (8th Cir.2009), cert. denied, 560 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3384 , 177 L.Ed.2d 305 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David C. Rodearmel
v.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
No. 09-797.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 7, 2010.
177 L. Ed. 2d 300
Published

On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court dismissed for lack of standing, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123, 127-131, and n. 10 (DC 2009), so it did not enter “any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution.” Joint Resolution on Compensation and Other Emoluments Attached to the Office of Secretary of State, § 1(b)(3)(A), Pub. L. 110-455, 122 Stat. 5036, note following 5 U.S.C. § 5312. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Same case below, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123.