Search for: "United States v. Close" Results 2041 - 2060 of 14,190
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2008, 6:15 am
Ron Evans from the Death Penalty Defense Unit won in State v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:41 pm by ---------------------------------
On January 24, 2011, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that an employee who alleged he was fired because his fiancé, also an employee, had filed a sex discrimination charge against their mutual employer three weeks prior to his termination, does have standing to assert a Title VII retaliation claim (see Thompson v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:20 am by Joel R. Brandes
Neumann’s custodial rights under Mexican law when she took her children to the United States on December 28, 2014. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 9:47 am by Lyle Denniston
  Its attack on a Washington state law that puts a $5,000 limit on contributions to ballot measure committees in the final three weeks before an election could become a significant sequel to the Court’s controversial ruling last January in Citizens United v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 11:12 am by Wells Bennett
The lunch hour comes to a close and we go back in the record in United States v. [read post]
16 Mar 2021, 6:00 am by Jason Rantanen
This language came dangerously close to swallowing an industry extolled for democratizing science and helping the United States overcome its PPE shortage in the heart of the COVID-19 outbreak. [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 12:23 pm by DONALD SCARINCI
[i]s a nonsectarian school in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 8:18 am by Erica Goldberg
I recently wrote a piece for Michigan Law Review’s online journal about why United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 12:09 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Montana. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 12:14 pm by Eliot Kim
On Feb. 27, the Supreme Court issued a 7-1 opinion in Jam v. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 7:11 pm
If the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) exceeds its statutory authority by instituting an IPR proceeding under circumstances contrary to the language of § 315(b), our court, sitting in its proper role as an appellate court, should review those determinations. [read post]