Search for: "Young v. Holder" Results 1 - 20 of 390
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jun 2009, 3:16 pm
Holder, No. 137486, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Young. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 3:17 pm
The first thing I notice is that the respondent's name is Holder, which means it's an immigration case, and the second thing I see is that Judge Reinhardt authors the majority opinion and Judge Bybee dissents. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 2:35 pm by immigrationprof
Dear Friends, I’m helping to coordinate an amicus curiae brief on behalf of immigration law professors, in support of a petition for certiorari being filed before the Supreme Court on behalf of two Albanian refugees—a young woman and her teenage... [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 9:53 am by Jon Sands
  The petitioner argued that Young was irreconcilable with Moncrieffe v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 1:37 pm
Under federal law, you're guilty if you "knowingly engage[] in a sexual act with another person who (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging" -- in short, if you mess around with a young teenager and you're not. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 7:32 am
Stephen Kimble was the patent holder of a toy that allows children "and young-at-heart adults," Kimble, 135 S. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 2:58 am by Frank Cranmer
Background The Supreme Court has upheld a challenge to the “named person” provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 7:54 am by Adam Levitin
Pretty amazing opinion in Culhane v Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska byJudge Young of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 1:34 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Co-authored by Kristin McGurn and Kevin Young Seyfarth Synopsis: At a time when the Massachusetts meal break landscape is increasingly friendly to employees, a federal judge in the state recently denied class certification in a meal break case, Romulus, et al. v. [read post]