Search for: "Pierce v. United States" Results 241 - 260 of 640
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2019, 3:57 am by Edith Roberts
United States, which asks whether, to convict defendant in U.S. illegally for violating a federal gun-possession law, prosecutors must show that defendant knew he was in the country illegally. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 4:28 am by Russ Bensing
In Columbus, the only opinion of note was State v. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 5:00 pm
Introduction In Part IVA (here) we considered whether the question in Stolt-Nielsen was one for the court or the arbitrators to decide, and predicted that at least five Justices of the United States Supreme Court will hold that the court must decide it. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 4:28 pm by Eugene Volokh
Examples are the doctors in Roe, who would face criminal penalties if they performed an abortion and invoked the privacy rights of their patients, or the religious school in Pierce v. [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 2:00 am
United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 5:01 am by Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk
United States that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not apply to criminal prosecutions. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:37 pm by Anthony B. Cavender and Amy L. Pierce
Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
7 May 2017, 9:30 pm by Richard J. Pierce, Jr.
The Supreme Court put a halt to that absurd practice in its opinion in United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 10:39 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
RobbinsCase number: 13-cv-06694 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York)Case filed: September 23, 2013Qualifying Judgment/Order: November 27, 2013 01/17/2014 04/17/2014 2013-125 SEC v. [read post]