Search for: "United States v. Breyer" Results 3321 - 3340 of 3,531
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2013, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
  An arrest is a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes, but under a case called United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 8:43 am
” Solicitor General’s PerspectiveMalcolm Stewart argued on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae, supporting neither party’s theory. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 11:27 am by Lyle Denniston
United States may depend upon how the Court understands two words: “apportion” and “contribution. [read post]
9 May 2022, 8:51 am by William C. MacLeod
[The 14th entry in our FTC UMC Rulemaking symposium is a guest post from Bill MacLeod, a former Federal Trade Commission bureau director and currently a partner with Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, where he chairs the firm’s antitrust practice and co-chairs its consumer protection practice. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 10:06 am by Josh Blackman
The United States cannot seek or obtain relief that thwarts the enforcement of S.B. 8 in those situations. [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 7:43 pm by Lisa McElroy
  Without U.S. citizenship, Flores-Villar was deported for committing a crime and charged with being present in the United States illegally when he tried to return. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 8:12 am by Ronald Mann
United States was as diametrically opposed to what I had predicted as any about which I have written here. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 12:45 am
DURBIN: Well, and the one death penalty case that you handled as a district court judge, United States vs. [read post]
24 Aug 2021, 6:38 pm by Amy Howe
They also contend that, without the policy, large numbers of migrants can enter the United States based on dubious asylum claims, imposing costs on the states. [read post]
7 Aug 2007, 1:11 am
Breyer as the keynote speaker, the organization will take up issues ranging from state secrets privileges to law firms' mandatory retirement policies. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 7:22 pm
  Breyer, in fact, suggests that “the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. [read post]