Works matching DE "BUSH v. Gore"
1
- George Washington Law Review, 2013, v. 81, n. 6, p. 1865
- Article
3
- Political Behavior, 2007, v. 29, n. 3, p. 327, doi. 10.1007/s11109-006-9021-6
- Article
4
- Quality & Quantity, 2007, v. 41, n. 4, p. 579, doi. 10.1007/s11135-007-9072-8
- Article
5
- 2011
- Conference Paper/Materials
8
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2011, v. 23, n. 3, p. 449
- Article
9
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2011, v. 23, n. 3, p. 325
- Article
10
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2011, v. 23, n. 3, p. 461
- BOPP JR., JAMES;
- COLESON, RICHARD E.
- Article
12
- Public Integrity, 2002, v. 4, n. 3, p. 239, doi. 10.1080/15580989.2002.11770917
- Article
13
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2008, v. 38, n. 1, p. 234, doi. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00304.x
- Article
14
- U.C. Davis Law Review, 2013, v. 47, n. 1, p. 343
- Article
15
- Text & Talk, 2016, v. 36, n. 4, p. 391, doi. 10.1515/text-2016-0018
- Article
16
- Stanford Law Review, 2007, v. 60, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
17
- Indiana Law Review, 2010, v. 44, n. 2, p. 23
- Article
18
- Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 2022, v. 36, n. 2, p. 553
- Article
19
- ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 2024, v. 81, n. 3, p. 286
- Article
20
- Texas Review of Law & Politics, 2004, v. 9, n. 1, p. 105
- Article
21
- Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2013, v. 43, n. 3, p. 392, doi. 10.1093/publius/pjt023
- Article
22
- Boston Review, 2011, v. 36, n. 1, p. 10
- Article
23
- California Law Review, 2001, v. 89, n. 6, p. 1721, doi. 10.2307/3481248
- Article
24
- St. Louis University Law Journal, 2012, v. 56, n. 3, p. 675
- Article
25
- St. Louis University Law Journal, 2012, v. 56, n. 3, p. 665
- Article
26
- Case Western Reserve Law Review, 2012, v. 62, n. 4, p. 947
- Article
27
- Case Western Reserve Law Review, 2012, v. 62, n. 4, p. 941
- Article
28
- e-Journal of Science & Technology, 2013, v. 8, n. 5, p. 1
- Article
29
- UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs, 2016, v. 20, n. 2, p. 275
- Article
30
- University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2021, v. 169, n. 2, p. 441
- Article
31
- Law & Society Review, 2011, v. 45, n. 4, p. 1027, doi. 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00464.x
- Owens, Ryan J.;
- Wedeking, Justin P.
- Article
32
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2016, v. 39, n. 3, p. 963
- Article
35
- Ohio State Law Journal, 2014, v. 75, n. 4, p. 779
- Article
37
- Stanford Law Review, 2016, v. 68, n. 6, p. 1411
- Kang, Michael S.;
- Shepherd, Joanna M.
- Article
38
- Public Opinion Quarterly, 2016, v. 80, n. 3, p. 622, doi. 10.1093/poq/nfw011
- GIBSON, JAMES L.;
- NELSON, MICHAEL J.
- Article
39
- Vanderbilt Law Review, 2018, v. 71, n. 2, p. 465
- Article
41
- University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2015, p. 193
- Article
42
- George Mason Law Review, 2020, v. 28, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
43
- Wake Forest Law Review, 2024, v. 59, n. 1, p. 61
- Kafker, Scott L.;
- Jacobs, Simon D.
- Article
44
- Connecticut Law Review, 2013, v. 45, n. 5, p. 1
- Article
45
- Yale Law Journal, 2007, v. 116, n. 5, p. 1159, doi. 10.2307/20455752
- Article
46
- William & Mary Law Review, 2018, v. 60, n. 2, p. 335
- BARNETT, CODY S.;
- DOUGLAS, JOSHUA A.
- Article
47
- Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2001, v. 4, n. 4, p. 605, doi. 10.1353/rap.2001.0075
- Prosise, Theodore O.;
- Smith, Craig R.
- Article
48
- Indiana Law Journal, 2019, v. 94, n. 2, p. 451
- Article
49
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2012, v. 2012, n. 6, p. 1705
- Article
50
- University of Memphis Law Review, 2014, v. 45, n. 2, p. 281
- LAMPARELLO, ADAM;
- MACLEAN, CHARLES E.
- Article