Search for: "*1**u.s. v. Lopez"
Results 281 - 300
of 427
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2018, 4:35 pm
§ 924(c)(3)(A); and (3) whether the U.S. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:15 pm
Thanks to Arizona’s overreaching, “Bates v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 7:19 am
Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006) (A trial court’s deprivation of a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction.) [read post]
15 Nov 2020, 3:13 pm
Lopez v. [read post]
18 Jun 2011, 1:42 pm
Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 120 (1942). [read post]
8 May 2015, 9:18 am
You’ll recall that the petitioner is an ad agency that was sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for its text-message campaign undertaken for the U.S. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 5:01 am
Rodriguez-Lopez, 565 F.3d 312 (U.S. [read post]
10 Mar 2018, 6:30 pm
Marin, Marguerite V. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 6:36 am
Even the U.S. [read post]
28 Jan 2022, 12:26 pm
Doe 21-968Issues: (1) Whether a recipient of federal funding may be liable in damages in a private action under Davis v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 8:25 am
Bank of Boston v. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 12:15 pm
The petition also asks whether the Federal Circuit erred in ruling that patent laws don’t apply to a contract entered into in the U.S. for the sale of goods abroad. [read post]
1 May 2015, 10:00 am
Lopez-Valenzuela 14-825Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to this Court's decision in Demore v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 2:28 pm
Opinion below (8th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply __________________ Docket: 08-479 Title: Safford United School District #1 v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 11:49 am
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973). [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 6:58 am
Lopez, United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 2:05 pm
In United States v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 5:58 pm
Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)). [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
Atlanta, GA Julio Lopez-De Dips, A206 011 402 (BIA Mar. 1, 2016) (2016 WL 1084489) - The BIA remanded the matter to the IJ for reconsideration of the respondent’s motion to continue in light of the respondent’s marriage to a U.S. citizen and the U.S. citizen spouse’s plans to file an I-130 for respondent. [read post]
