Search for: "U. S. v. Range" Results 281 - 300 of 860
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2019, 4:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Widlitz v Douglas Elliman, LLC  2019 NY Slip Op 31737(U)  June 21, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 154689/2016 Judge: Arlene P. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 4:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Widlitz v Douglas Elliman, LLC  2019 NY Slip Op 31737(U)  June 21, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 154689/2016 Judge: Arlene P. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 10:17 am by John Elwood
United States, namely, whether a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (under which the prosecution and defense agree to a specific sentence) is “based on” the defendant’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range if the guidelines range was part of the framework the district court relied on. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 2:03 am by rhapsodyinbooks
OctoPOTUS, illustration by Jonathan Burton for U. of Chicago Magazine review of Posner and Vermeule’s book Eric A. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 8:52 am by Timothy P. Flynn, Esq.
 Justice Stevens' replacement will most-likely be a confirmed sitting Justice by the time Perry is on the high-court's docket sometime in 2012; the day-after-tomorrow from the Supreme Court's usual long-range perspective.Of note:  Perry is not the only "gay-rights" case percolating through the federal courts at the moment. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 10:46 am by Kent Scheidegger
  Here is the essence of today's holding:Three Terms ago, in Johnson v. [read post]
The majority’s statement that there is “no compelling showing that any of the petitioners will suffer immediate irreparable harm” in the absence of a stay is also in some tension with the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 3:33 am by Peter Mahler
If, as appears likely, the drafters of the LLC membership interest repurchase provisions at issue in Saleeby v Remco Maintenance, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 31447(U) [Sup Ct NY County July 25, 2016], thought they were helping the company avoid the possibility of litigation over the value assigned to the outgoing member’s interest, as it turns out they were sorely mistaken. [read post]