Search for: "United States v. Minor"
Results 1981 - 2000
of 6,288
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Aug 2007, 10:15 am
Songying Fang, Tim Johnson, and Jason Roberts (all of the University of Minnesota Political Science Department) have posted "Will of the Minority: Rule of Four on the United States Supreme Court" on SSRN, see here. [read post]
11 May 2023, 6:31 am
Harrison was a significant case in the evolution of media law in Illinois and the United States, underscoring the importance of a free and independent press in holding public officials accountable and informing the public. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 11:15 am
Surely that cannot be the view of the United States--yet it is the logical implication of the government’s absurd “affirmative facilitation” argument. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:52 am
The FTAIA limits the reach of the Sherman Act outside of the United States. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 1:01 am
” It wasn’t until 1938 that the Court, in a footnote to a case, United States v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 11:43 am
United States and Beckles v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 8:38 am
CAC adoption, already pervasive in the UK market, skyrocketed in the United States after a concerted effort by the U.S. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 9:05 am
United States, 293 F. 1013, 1013-14 (D.C. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 12:10 pm
These are Department for Education v Information Commissioner & Whitmey [2018] UKUT 348 and Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner & Webber [2018] UKUT 410. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 7:37 am
’ (United States v. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 6:45 am
Key Precedent Fourteenth Amendment (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. [read post]
18 May 2015, 2:18 pm
The issuance or sale of securities is subject to regulation by the United States Securities Exchange Commission and by authorities in every state, including the Securities Division of the Office of the Indiana Secretary of State. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 5:27 pm
The court also concludes that Vermont’s program is unreasonable as applied to Byrne’s JN36TN plate:” Related posts:Why Wasn’t United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:55 am
Summarily terminating a federal officer holding a term appointment from his or her positionPHH Corporation v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, USCA District of Columbia Circuit, Docket #15-1177NYPPL earlier summarized the decision in PHH Corporation v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a decision in which the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit considered the issue of summarily removing a public officer holding a… [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:55 am
Summarily terminating a federal officer holding a term appointment from his or her positionPHH Corporation v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, USCA District of Columbia Circuit, Docket #15-1177NYPPL earlier summarized the decision in PHH Corporation v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a decision in which the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit [Docket #15-1177] considered the issue of summarily removing a public… [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 2:44 am
--Court: United States District Court for the District of ArizonaOpinion Date: 3/27/09Cite: Sogeti USA, LLC v. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 4:05 pm
It stated that, even if most people in Lithuania had been offended, as argued by the Lithuanian Government, a minority’s rights under the Convention could not be dependent on those rights being accepted by the majority [82]. [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 8:11 am
United States, 17-6540, Orr v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 6:42 am
The predecessor insurance companies to the plaintiff, Arrowood Indemnity Company, brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut claiming that they did not have a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants, Pendleton King, Daphne King and their minor child, Pendleton King, Jr. [read post]
10 Apr 2020, 1:16 pm
Just as in the December 2000 decision by the Supreme Court in Bush v. [read post]
