Search for: "United States v. Grant" Results 41 - 60 of 28,593
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2024, 8:08 am by Kalvis Golde
United States, Khadr asks the justices to grant review and reverse the D.C. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:55 am by Dennis Crouch
It also provides representative examples of the mark as displayed on products in stores in the United States. [read post]
1 May 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
United States oral argument reminded me of how little the Roberts Court has actually cared about rule of law values and legal transparency during its 18-year run. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 3:12 pm by Bill Marler
 E. coli O157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes Escherichia coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body and tail or flagellum[2] respectively and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and… [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 10:53 am by JURIST Staff
In 1990, Asma Jahangir successfully represented Darshan Masih in a landmark case regarding bonded labor (Darshan Masih v the State, PLD 1990 SC 513). [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 8:37 am by Will Baude
United States, which concerned whether presidents have criminal "immunity" for their official acts while in office. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 6:41 am by Douglas A. Berman
One theme of my marijuana seminar is how the US Supreme Court has largely stayed out of broad legal uncertainties relating to marijuana reform for the past two decades (after very significant early rulings in United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
As the United States is a party to these instruments, it must address the activities of vulture funds that violate the rights enshrined in them. [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm by Dennis Crouch
Cir. 1973) (holding that Section 6(g) “empowered [the FTC] to promulgate substantive rules of business conduct”); United States v. [read post]