Search for: "United States v. Gear" Results 201 - 220 of 550
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Mar 2014, 10:32 am by Joy Waltemath
The employees’ plea that the employer independently violated the state wage law’s “notice” provisions offered them no recourse (Barton v House of Raeford Farms, Inc dba Columbia Farms, Inc, March 11, 2014, Niemeyer, P). [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 6:00 am by Brian Gallini
In 1984, the Supreme Court created a now well-known “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule in United States v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am by Dennis Crouch
International Trade Commission, et al., No. 16-428 (Whether Section 337(a)(1)(A) permits the ITC to adjudicate claims regarding trade secret misappropriation alleged to have occurred outside the United States.) [read post]
22 May 2019, 5:57 am by Emmah Wabuke
While the Security Council unanimously lauded ECOWAS’s military intervention in Sierra Leone in 1998, dissent from the United States led the council to reject a similar intervention by ECOWAS into Liberia in 1998. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 10:30 am by Sam Gustin
The new crackdown, part of “Operation In Our Sites v. 2.0,” is aimed at websites that sell counterfeit goods like fake scarves and golf gear, as well sites that facilitate what the government deems to be illegal music piracy, officials said. [read post]
17 May 2011, 2:40 pm by William A. Ruskin
Connecticut the United States Supreme Court may indeed transform the way we produce and obtain energy. [read post]
21 May 2008, 7:45 am
(in support of the petitioner) Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending denial of certiorari) Supplemental brief of petitioner AT&T Pension Benefit Plan __________________ Docket: 07-1008 Case name: McNeil v. [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 10:26 am by Somil Trivedi
United States, about what prior acts can trigger overly harsh federal sentences for gun possession. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 9:52 am by Jon L. Gelman
Additionally, Monsanto admitted that it never conducted any long-term carcinogenicity studies on any of the formulations that it’s sold in the United States.Holding:The Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRRA) 7 U.S.C. ch. 6 §136 et al. does not preempt state law. [read post]