Search for: "United States v. Ables" Results 241 - 260 of 12,708
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jan 2024, 2:03 pm by Carl Shusterman
Pereira before him, had lived in the United States for less than 10 years when he was served with an NTA. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm by renholding
”[2]  In that same policy, the Commission articulated its belief “that a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 6:33 am by centerforartlaw
Article 7 urges a signatory state to prohibit the importation of illicitly transferred cultural property from another state while Article 9 allows a state whose cultural property is in jeopardy to request assistance from other states.[4] CPIA allows foreign states to enter into bilateral agreements (or Memorandum of Understanding) with the U.S., which entails an import restriction on cultural property of certain types and from certain periods. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 5:31 am by Ashley Morgan
When the FDA approves a drug for sale in the United States, the FDA includes a section in the drugs package insert titled "Indications for Use. [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 6:00 am by Chile Eboe-Osuji
Germany, the U.K., and the United States notably belong to the latter camp. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 4:38 am by Beatrice Yahia
”  The Houthis’ military spokesperson Yahya Sarea has issued a statement saying the United States and the United Kingdom carried out 18 strikes in Yemen in total, warning “these attacks will not go unanswered. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 1:50 am by CMS
The Supreme Court considered a number of decisions by the ECtHR, including Unite the Union v United Kingdom [2017] IRLR 438, in which it was held that member states have a wide margin of discretion in how they protect trade union freedom. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
You are probably well acquainted with its successor, rule 506.[2] Prior to the adoption of former rule 146 in April 1974, the Commission did not have rules interpreting section 4(2) of the Securities Act.[3] As a result, issuers faced uncertainty in determining whether a sale of securities did not involve “any public offering” and in applying case law on the topic, including the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. [read post]