Search for: "The Active v. United States" Results 281 - 300 of 18,150
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Sep 2023, 6:24 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Northern Arapaho Tribe: US v NAT Cert Petition.pdfDownload Question presented: Whether IHS must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 1:06 pm by Public Employment Law Press
The United States Supreme Court held that the State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violated the First Amendment, overruling its earlier decision in Abood v Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm by jleaming@acslaw.org
  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has also been clear that state laws that stand as obstacles to the objectives or means used in federal laws are also preempted, which was the claim made here when the United States sued over the Arizona law that avowedly sought to “discourage and deter unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:41 am by Adam Chandler
United States and United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 4:16 am by INFORRM
On Tuesday the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights heard the application in the case of Mosley v United Kingdom. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 3:59 pm by Michael C. Dorf
United States, I find myself somewhat at a loss as to what points to focus on here. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 6:09 pm by Wells Bennett
When Tatel pressed further, Gershengorn seemed to agree that this would doom the United States’s position. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 7:16 am
United States of America Nadarajah v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 11:30 pm by Maxwell Kennerly
One of the nice things about the being a Justice of the United States Supreme Court is that you never have to explain yourself. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 11:07 am by Matthew Kahn
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, concluding that it was bound by its 2010 decision in United States v. [read post]