Search for: "United States v. Close" Results 2421 - 2440 of 14,190
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2012, 2:22 pm by Kevin
The beginning of a motion filed in Louisiana on February 21, 2012: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA  IN RE: OIL SPILL by the OIL RIG "DEEPWATER HORIZON"                                    MDL 2179 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:TRAHAN v. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 2:25 pm by Aaron Rubin
., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 2:27 am by Kendall Gray
I'm watching the Court's term a little more closely this year as I am slated to give the SCOTUS update at the UT Conference on State and Federal Appeals at the end of May. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  The cover art and subtitle suggest that the narrative is centered on United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 7:53 am by John McFarland
The Texas Supreme Court denied the landowners’ motion for rehearing last Friday in Murphy v. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 12:22 pm by John Floyd
  In July 2022, the American Bar Association weighed in on the internecine legal warfare between political activist attorneys and state bar associations this way:   “In June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Janus v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 5:16 pm by Danny O'Brien
ICANN stays a private company, still working out of the United States. [read post]
26 Nov 2020, 9:06 am by JoAnn Hymel
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently found in favor of employers and carriers when it comes to the financial consequences of delayed compensation for claims arising under the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Nov 2020, 9:06 am by JoAnn Hymel
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently found in favor of employers and carriers when it comes to the financial consequences of delayed compensation for claims arising under the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 10:05 am by Christine Swanick and Wilda Wahpepah
  But the court also noted that “it appears nothing prevents the United States from doing so as the Pueblo’s trustee. [read post]