Search for: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Rush" Results 41 - 60 of 202
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2015, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
Kite, The History of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indiana Historical Society Press, 2007); Mark Edward Lender, "This Honorable Court": The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 1789-2000 (Rutgers University Press, 2006); John O. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 1:31 pm by SteinMcewen, LLP
  The changes further made the novelty defeating acts available wherever they occur in the world, thereby removing requirements related to occurrences in the United States. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 11:19 am by Rahul Bhagnari, ACLU
Bush brought together Republicans and Democrats as he signed a 25-year extension of a law exemplifying "our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect." [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 10:39 pm by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the case in which the Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and did not result in a compensable taking merely because it eventually stopped, and "at most created tort liablity. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:56 am
The first assault on birthright citizenship began when hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants began flooding America prior to and during the California Gold Rush. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 6:30 am by John Mikhail
The Constitution of the United States has been called the world’s most important legal document. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 4:27 am by SHG
That the election of the President of the United States of America should hinge on someone like my mother’s ability to figure out how to use a ballot was a matter of some serious concern. [read post]
5 May 2010, 7:13 pm by Rick
  It is worth noting that in the recent United States Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 1:48 am
From that side of the pond United States and Canada are members [full list of members can be found here]. [read post]
30 May 2019, 7:15 am by Andrew Hamm
At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that “it seems that the conservative justices on the nation’s highest court (with the notable exception of Clarence Thomas) are content to plod along rather than rush headlong into a decision that could spark a dangerous new flashpoint in the culture wars. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 12:00 am
Instead, in the case of United States of America v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 12:00 am
Instead, in the case of United States of America v. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 12:22 pm
In particular, public wrath is displayed against those who would challenge "age of consent" laws, which are higher in the United States (now effectively 18 in all states due to Federal statutes) than in most other societies. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 6:56 am by Anthony Gaughan
Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Husted v. [read post]
23 May 2022, 6:42 am by Eric Goldman
They could not remove speech glorifying terrorist attacks against the United States—unless they also remove speech decrying, memorializing, or educating about terrorist attacks against the United States. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 12:16 pm by Hilary Hurd
Humphrey … with intent to subvert the authority of the Government of the United States, to hinder and delay the due execution of the laws of the United States, and to oppress and injure citizens of the United States, did unlawfully act as judge of an illegally constituted tribunal within said State, called the district court of the Confederate States of America, and as judge of said tribunal … then and… [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 11:13 am
Bryza is suggesting that a lame-duck President who, I hope, will have been soundly repudiated in November by the victory of Obama-Biden, would view himself as having the legitimate authority to bind the United States to the defense of Georgia's territorial integrity (at least if one takes Article V of NATO seriously). [read post]