Search for: "United States v. BUILDING, ETC." Results 181 - 200 of 498
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2025, 9:05 pm by renholding
New bank formation in the United States is at an all-time low, and Americans increasingly rely on non-bank financial technology companies (fintechs) to satisfy their financial services needs. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
  Of course, there is still the question whether the restriction caused by these seditious offences is no more than necessary to limit the right to freedom of expression and of publication, etc. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 8:55 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The Center proposed to demolish its existing 13,745 square foot single story building with a 68,206 square foot mixed use five story project, including 50 residential units. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 6:18 am
Such remedies should include judicial and non-judicial remedies compatible with the Third Pillar duties and responsibilities of States under the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 11:25 am by Joseph Fishkin
In parts of the United States, back alley abortions would then have remained common, and lunch counters segregated.But to Republicans today, defeating Bork was the original sin. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 2:57 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Perhaps worse, this standard is stated as being the standard for the Lanham Act in a state law consumer protection case, with citation of but no apparent comprehension of the difference between literal falsity and literal truth that is nonetheless misleading. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 8:26 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 Indonesia long defined geographic-political units according to ethnicity and TCEs, part of the nation-building project. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]