Search for: "United States v. Breyer" Results 3141 - 3160 of 3,531
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jan 2007, 1:31 am
  Surely, it will be argued, the United States is TRIPS-compliant as the leading proponent and creator of the TRIPS; hence, if eBay is the law of the United States, it presents a model of TRIPS-compliance for any country to follow. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
” Last week, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court debated just that scenario, in Redding v. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 2:03 pm by Amy Howe
Michael Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general who argued on behalf of the United States, faced a slightly more (but not completely) receptive audience. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 4:38 am by Edith Roberts
City of Joliet and Endrew F. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 8:02 pm by John Elwood
As Noreiga's reply brief states, "[t]he decision below affects the rights of hundreds of prisoners in United States' custody. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 8:13 am by John Elwood
United States ex rel. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 11:29 am by Kevin Goldberg
  The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that MCAC is not a state actor and granted the motion to dismiss. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
Purdue's relentless promotion of OxyContin itself caused tens of thousands of deaths, ruined many more lives, and played a key role in fueling the wider opioid epidemic that still bedevils individuals, families, and communities throughout the United States.After years of inaction, the United States brought civil and criminal charges against Purdue the company (but not the Sacklers), resulting in a guilty plea and a $2 billion forfeiture, but meanwhile, the Sacklers… [read post]
30 Nov 2021, 4:53 pm by Nicholas Bagley
Don Verrilli, a former solicitor general of the United States, argued the case for the hospitals. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 7:34 am by Amy Howe
In a Term in which the Court was not considering the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Texas’s redistricting plans, and Arizona’s controversial efforts to regulate immigration, the Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]