Search for: "MATTER OF F M JR" Results 261 - 280 of 407
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2022, 6:10 am by Noah J. Phillips
This is not simply a matter of the—already controversial[32]—historical attempts by the agency to define under Section 5 conduct that goes outside the Sherman Act. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 11:55 am by admin
Irving, Jr., dashed Oreskes’ hopes of testifying as an historian, and told her not to bother coming to Washington for trial.[5] Naomi Oreskes is a “professor of the History of Science, in Harvard University. [read post]
31 May 2006, 6:06 am by Koz
Wilkins, 2006-Ohio-2420.Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2003-M-146. [read post]
29 May 2009, 2:36 pm
In addition, the decision to seek a warrant could be challenged (presumably by JR), relying on those findings of fact (at [56]). [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 7:16 am
“Pete” Miller, Jr., a part-time Professor at Texas A&M University, got the easier job. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 9:29 pm by Jeff Gamso
Kruger and seven other defendants — including Assemblyman William F. [read post]
18 Jul 2015, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
President Harry Truman The 1963 assassination of President John F. [read post]
6 Dec 2008, 12:22 pm
But to get a D rather than an F shouldn't be good enough for Supreme Court opinions that affect people's rights and lives.Be that as it may, if Justice Alito was aware of such criticisms as those offered by Rakove or by, say, Saul Cornell and other professional historians, and if was aware that, at least to my knowledge, not a single professional historian has offered kudos to Justice Scalia's opinion (that Justice Alito signed), then, to put the matter gently, he… [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 1:39 am by Vincent LoTempio
The protection of the rights of individual United States citizens has come a long way since John F. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 11:13 am by Old Fox
These f***ing windows don’t open! [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 1:42 pm
” [8] In Central, the court explained that its decision was guided by statutory interpretation, noting that “[i]f … Congress intended to impose aiding and abetting liability, we presume it would have used the words ‘aid’ and ‘abet’ in the statutory text. [read post]