Search for: "May Broadcasting Co. v. United States" Results 181 - 200 of 396
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Oct 2007, 7:21 am
" Yet Ramadan had been banned from entering the United States since 2004, when his visa had been revoked. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm by Christa Culver
Rath Packing Co. (1977) that the provision must be given “a broad meaning”? [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 4:33 am by Edith Roberts
Monday’s argument agenda also included State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 2:28 pm
It is unbecoming for elected officials to avoid their constitutional obligation (see New York Constitution, Article 6, sec. 25), to a co-equal branch of government for petty and personal reasons. [read post]
2 Oct 2007, 11:48 pm
While the petition does not specifically lay out what portions of the relevant statutes and United States Constitution the FCC violated, Verizon is clearly invoking the APA's arbitrary and capricious test. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 8:09 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the November 8 conference) United States v. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm by Schachtman
See “Medical Horizons,” Broadcasting * Telecasting at 14 (Nov. 21, 1955) (describing Selikoff as a plodding presenter). [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 11:20 am by Anna Christensen
Gore (1996) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 7:42 am by Eric Goldman
Among other things, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments that legislatures could treat the Internet like telephony or broadcasting. [read post]
29 Jul 2009, 12:04 pm
" This quote is unnerving to people who believe that our constitutions were designed to protect property owners, not property takers.Dissent at 23 (citing Green Bay Broadcasting Co. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 2:46 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Regular readers of this blog know my view that the  rise of collective investor actions outside the United States is one of the most important developments in the world of directors’ and officers’ liability in recent years. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 5:01 am by Kelly
(Docket Report) District Court N D California: False advertisement through third parties may constitute false marking, but facts must be pled with particularity: United States of America, ex. rel., et. al. v. [read post]