Search for: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. "
Results 2961 - 2980
of 8,925
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2015, 7:05 am
That trend has snowballed since 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the core of the Defense of Marriage Act in the ACLU’s United States v. [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 11:34 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 12:44 pm
Reports GAO – NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: Setting On-Time Performance Targets at Congested Airports Could Help Focus FAA’s Actions National Airspace System: Summary of Flight Delay Trends for 34 Airports in the Continental United States (GAO-10-543SP, May 26, 2010), an E-supplement to GAO-10-542 FAA – Environmental Control and Life Support Systems for Flight Crew and Space Flight Participants in Suborbital Space Flight CRS – Ballistic Missile Defense and… [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 8:18 am
The Supreme Court’s Analysis Tracing the history of patent law in the United States, the Court noted that it had previously considered the standard of proof in its decision in Radio Corp. of America v. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 11:30 am
Since 2014, the United States has publicly accused Moscow of violating the treaty. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 3:49 pm
But this case is not about the United States' or Texas' rights to implement criminal laws. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 12:08 am
Thanks to District Court Judge Joan Ericksen of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, next week NeoCon attendees will be able to see and experience both SEEYOND and BEYOND products, without likely confusion, when she confirmed last week in a written order her previous oral denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in Verscene Inc. and Seeyond Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2008, 5:04 am
Asset Marketing Inc., No. 05-CV-00633 (S.D.Cal.), filed in March 2005, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and certified as a state-wide class action (covering a class that “partially overlaps the Negrete class”) in July 2006; Mooney v. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 10:32 am
--Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of North CarolinaOpinion Date: 6/30/09Cite: Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 6:01 am
As stated by the majority, the outcome hinged squarely on whether Westboro’s speech was of public or private concern, as public speech in the United States is granted almost untouchable protection. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 1:12 pm
Subsequently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, noting that the CDA does not contain a definition of “user,” turned to the plain meaning of the word. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 5:46 am
The plaintiffs, The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut (Diocese), the Reverend Canon David Cannon, Bishop Seabury Church (Parish), and The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (Episcopal Church), brought this action against the defendants, Ronald S. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 11:43 am
All women will be affected by these developments.Outside of the United States, the attack on women’s health care is even more devastating. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:45 am
They’re just not an antitrust violation in the United States. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 12:12 pm
However, In their 2016 article, Hemel & Ouellette explain that the opposite rule would be the one more likely to “lower prices of patented goods in the United States and raise prices abroad. [read post]
12 Jul 2023, 8:00 am
Still less does it require denying the latter the right to live and work in the United States. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 3:47 pm
United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923). [read post]
10 May 2017, 6:26 am
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 6:17 am
Mazda Motor of America Inc.: By providing a choice in safety features, federal regulations do not automatically preempt state tort claims against manufacturers.Honorable Mentions: Thompson v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 3:39 pm
And not only that, but there is a 1988 federal United States Supreme Court case, Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. [read post]
