Search for: "ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES " Results 2881 - 2900 of 9,847
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2011, 6:26 am by James Bickford
  In the Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on the sequels to Citizens United, which are raising “[i]ssues such as how the government may regulate disclosure of spending, and whether bans on direct corporate contributions to candidates” are permissible. [read post]
5 May 2019, 8:18 am by John Floyd
From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 5:40 am by Dan Ernst
Filburn (1942) and United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 11:15 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
As reported on the Hunton Employment Labor and Law Blog, on January 20, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Campbell-Ewald v. [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 6:59 am by Eric Turkewitz
This is especially true if I’m writing about the United States Supreme Court and noting something that others didn’t feel worthy of comment. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 8:17 pm
United States v Roberts, 618 F2d 530), nor did her testimony usurp the jury's function to assess the informant's credibility (see People v Hayes, 226 AD2d 1055, 1056 lv denied 88 NY2d 936). [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 4:21 am by Michael C. Dorf
That provision renders non-citizens inadmissible to the U.S. if the deciding consular or other government official "knows, or has reasonable ground to believe" that the non-citizen "seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in any . . . unlawful activity. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 9:16 am by Arthur Bright
The United States Supreme Court is, when it comes to technology, almost completely ignorant. [read post]
3 Dec 2006, 10:28 am
Righting Romm:  The Ninth Circuit blog explains how United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 3:44 pm by Gregory Barbee
On March 4, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, expanded the protections offered to whistleblowers under anti-fraud laws, in Lawson v. [read post]