Search for: "D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,166
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2017, 10:23 am
That is the correct next step, the government contended, because the government’s efforts to appeal the D.C. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 1:41 pm
Madison, the D.C. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 8:42 am
Paulson is scheduled for argument before the D.C. [read post]
14 Aug 2015, 1:23 pm
Department of Health and Human Services, DC Cir., Aug. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals for the D.C. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 1:41 pm
Madison, the D.C. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 3:24 pm
D.C. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 2:14 pm
The D.C. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 5:00 am
Department of Agriculture. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 12:39 pm
Council bill also makes clear that the Department of Corrections has discretion in this regard. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 10:01 am
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that Clifford Chance’s Washington office employed 60 litigators. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 4:58 am
” The United States, in its response filed by the Department of Justice, does not address the D.C. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 1:41 pm
Some interesting news today out of D.C. in regard to the U.S. attorney mess, the story that gave and gave so unselfishly during 2007. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 5:02 pm
More importantly, the D.C. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 12:40 pm
Department of State, Washington, D.C. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 9:33 am
D.C. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 8:10 am
The D.C. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 6:12 am
If our theory is correct, the Justice Department’s clear statement in its Meadows brief that testimonial immunity does not apply means that, from this point forward, no senior adviser to Trump—including Meadows or Scavino—has a viable defense to contempt for refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoenas. [read post]
24 Jul 2022, 12:23 pm
Department of the Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1200-01 (D.C. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 9:00 am
Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 8:00 am
If that occurred, the legal defense of the President’s action could be bolstered by a recent decision by a three-judge panel of the D.C. [read post]