Search for: "United States v. Choice" Results 2421 - 2440 of 6,475
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2007, 1:23 am
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUITCriminal PracticePrior Shoplifting Offenses Not ‘Similar' to Passing Bad Check; No Error in Criminal History Computation United States, appellee v. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 6:04 am
It stated that cooperation with the Government's investigation was a factor to be considered. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 12:58 pm by Woodruff Family Law Group
In 2003 the United States Supreme Court gave us the decision of Lawrence vs. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 12:58 pm by Woodruff Family Law Group
In 2003 the United States Supreme Court gave us the decision of Lawrence vs. [read post]
26 Jul 2022, 6:43 am by Florian Mueller
That makes sense.At the same time, Pfizer and BioNTech have made a strategically very smart move, too:With its narrative that portrays CureVac as a sore loser (without using that term), the complaint is directed not only at the court of law (and the jury to be selected further down the road) but also at the court of public opinion.Pfizer is headquartered in New York but has a home-field advantage anywhere in the United States, and BioNTech has one of its two U.S. offices in the Bay… [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
Kite, The History of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indiana Historical Society Press, 2007); Mark Edward Lender, "This Honorable Court": The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 1789-2000 (Rutgers University Press, 2006); John O. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 12:31 pm by Eric Segall
 Prior to the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Mitchell v. [read post]
1 Mar 2023, 4:05 pm by Lawrence Solum
With this history in mind, along with (i) foundational principles of state judicial practice and (ii) the shortcomings of the United States Supreme Court’s approach to fractured opinions in Marks v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 6:13 pm
DVSS brought a motion in the district court to dismiss Bamberg's claims on the grounds that, because Bamberg did not obtain its products directly from J & J, it lacked standing to pursue antitrust claims based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]