Search for: "Commonwealth v. Choice" Results 281 - 300 of 370
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Mar 2011, 7:10 am by Paul A. Prados
 Decision here:http://www.scribd.com/doc/49899901/Liberty-v-GeithnerThis decision, although it did not gain much traction in the press, will increase in importance in the next few months. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 11:06 am by David Lat
”)The McMahon video, as another tipster pointed out to us, was memorialized in the Third Circuit’s opinion in Wilson v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 6:00 am
This issue was litigated and decided on January 4, 2010 in the Western District of Kentucky in a case called Commonwealth Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 5:00 pm by Colin Murray
By contrast, in Hirst v UK (No 2), the Grand Chamber of the European Court approached the issue very differently. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 8:07 pm by cdw
Commonwealth in last week’s edition. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 8:27 am by Lawrence Solum
Recently in Roach v Electoral Commissioner (‘Roach’), the High Court considered a challenge to a 2006 amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) that extended the class of disenfranchised prisoners from any person serving a sentence of three years or longer to any person ‘who is serving a sentence of imprisonment’. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am by Steven M. Taber
– Pacific Daily News, July 27, 2010 District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood approved a months-old consent decree between the federal government and Mobil Oil that requires the company to pay $2.4 million in penalties for allegedly violating the Clean Air Act on Guam and in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am by Steven M. Taber
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]