Search for: "United States v. Fisher" Results 261 - 280 of 1,016
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Feb 2017, 9:15 am by Peter Margulies
There are substantial questions about whether expedited removal is consistent with due process, at least for noncitizens with these stronger ties to the United States. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 4:40 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly: At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro weighs in on Lee v. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 1:16 pm
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested, incarcerated, and criminally prosecuted for engaging in constitutionally protected free speech and was detained and arrested without probable cause in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [read post]
The answers to the certified questions issued by the majority opinion are as follows: Question 1: As a matter of Iowa law, does the doctrine of implied immunity  of  drainage  districts  as  applied  in  cases  such  as  Fisher  v. [read post]
The majority answered the certified questions as follows: Question 1: As a matter of Iowa law, does the doctrine of implied immunity  of  drainage  districts  as  applied  in  cases  such  as  Fisher  v. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 4:44 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly:    At the National Conference of State Legislatures Blog, Lisa Soronen discusses the court’s recent decision to review National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 7:35 am by Joy Waltemath
Wade, are in far less peril than more recent decisions, such as the affirmative action case of Fisher v. [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
United States, a bank-fraud case, rejecting Lawrence Shaw’s argument that he could not be found liable under the federal bank-fraud statute if he only intended to defraud a third party, not the bank itself, and remanding for consideration of questions about the jury instructions. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 6:57 am by Juan C. Antúnez
 As noted by Judge Warner’s strong dissent in the linked-to case above: The right to marry is a fundamental right, protected by the United States Constitution. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 6:57 am by Juan C. Antúnez
 As noted by Judge Warner’s strong dissent in the linked-to case above: The right to marry is a fundamental right, protected by the United States Constitution. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 6:37 pm by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
"Bongiovanni stated he spoke with Nella on several occasions after her husband died and suggested to her that she execute a new will. [read post]