Search for: "United States v. Abed" Results 301 - 320 of 819
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2019, 7:02 am by Simon Lester
While bringing the US tariff dispute to the WTO on January 29, 2019, China asserted that the US’s actions to block AB appointments are arguably “illegitimate” because DSU Article 17.2 requires that “[v]acancies shall be filled as they arise”. [read post]
31 Dec 2017, 12:00 am by Orin Kerr
United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), which considered whether federal immigration law preempted an Arizona state law designed to add extra state enforcement mechanisms. [read post]
16 Mar 2007, 10:35 am
Laeser,Contrary to your assertion, the State of Florida v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 6:59 pm by Sungjoon Cho
See Appellate Body Report, United States—Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, ¶ 343, WT/DS384/AB/R (Jun. 29, 2012). (...) [read post]
26 Dec 2015, 9:47 pm by Patricia Salkin
Sullivan Farms IV, LLC v Village of Wurstboro, 2015 WL 8373781 (NYAD 3 Dept. 12/10/2015)Filed under: Current Caselaw - New York, Site Plan Review, Subdivision Regulation [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 7:36 am by Amber Walsh
ABS Capital Partners — Founded in 1990, ABS invests in late-stage growth companies. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 8:02 am by Lawfare Staff
Abe developed before assuming his current post, envisions a maritime security partnership between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 9:54 am by Mike "No Man" Navarre
Thursday, November 3, 2011, Time TBD: United States v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 9:00 am
AB 818, if passed, would require tenants in apartment buildings, with five or more units, to recycle. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 11:27 am by Schachtman
Works of the United States government, including works prepared by its officers and employees, do not qualify for copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. [read post]
17 May 2021, 10:01 pm by Steven Dawson
  The Court found, in a 2-1 decision, that in 2020, the United States District Court for California, Southern District (San Diego) had abused its discretion when it enjoined the State of California from enforcing AB-5 against motor carriers doing business in California (on the ground that such enforcement was preempted by F4A) (our prior article on the District Court’s ruling can be read here). [read post]