Search for: "United States v. Monie"
Results 241 - 260
of 439
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Dec 2008, 7:37 am
’” Id. at *4 (quoting Sanchez-Robles, 927 F.2d at 1074; quoting United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 8:50 pm
Thomas v. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 8:18 am
Supreme Court in Vermont v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 8:37 pm
NRDC v. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 2:58 am
The impetus for the denial was a provision of the Missouri constitution prohibiting the “direct or indirect” expenditure of state monies toward churches or other religious entities. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 6:55 am
Because of its perceived unfairness, the clause has been outlawed, or its effect has been substantially limited, in the United Kingdom and in many states of the United States. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 7:49 am
See United States v. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 4:08 am
Bush appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [read post]
6 May 2009, 1:11 am
"49 This statute was made use of in United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 11:13 am
$130,000 cap is increased automatically on January 31, 2012 and on January 31 every two years thereafter by the product of the average annual percentage changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) as published by the United States department of labor bureau of labor statistics for the two year period rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 6:31 am
Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, John V. [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 3:44 pm
Had that been the case, the New York State and United States legislatures would have added language providing for such exceptions. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 6:04 am
Central Regional Employees Benefit Fund v. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 8:14 am
Gallardo’s parents (supported by the United States, as amicus) disagreed. [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 2:12 pm
United States, 150 F. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 8:05 pm
The Cassinelli Decision California’s Marriage of Cassinelli (2016) 4 CA5th 1285, 210 CR3d 311, a decision reached by our own Fourth Appellate District, Division Two in Riverside, is now published and citable per California’s Judicial Council (but note that a Petition for Certiorari is presently docketed with the United States Supreme Court). [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 8:30 am
V. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 11:25 am
Another issue is whether the mark is used within the type of commerce that the United States Congress can regulate, such as interstate commerce. [read post]
15 Aug 2020, 4:29 am
Daniels of the United States District Court (SDNY), and Joel R. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 4:17 pm
AIALA, Appellant, v. [read post]
