Search for: "United States v. Sutton" Results 341 - 360 of 372
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2017, 11:09 am by Calvin TerBeek
But Alito then weighs in on the "culture wars," criticizing the Court's handling of Fisher v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 7:37 am by Abbe R. Gluck and Gillian Metzger
The “tangible link to commerce … based on empirical demonstration” that Justice Kennedy identified as necessary under the Commerce Clause two Terms ago in United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 9:16 pm by Tyler Hoguet
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first oral contraceptive available in the United States without a prescription. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
Larry Lessig is clearly one of the most interesting and imaginative scholars within the legal academy, and he has written a book that fully vindicates the enthusiastic blurbs it receives (from myself, as well as others). [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 6:22 am by Jag
  Rule 16.5  concerns defences, and states that a defendant must state which allegations he admits, denies, and is unable to admit or deny and requires the claimant to prove (a non-admission). [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 6:22 am by Jag
  Rule 16.5  concerns defences, and states that a defendant must state which allegations he admits, denies, and is unable to admit or deny and requires the claimant to prove (a non-admission). [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 7:43 am by Joy Waltemath
Affirming the fee award, a Sixth Circuit panel explained that accepting the lower offer was one measure of success (or lack thereof), that Rule 68 did not conflict with the fee-shifting statute at issue, and that the reduction was reasonable (McKelvey v Secretary of United States Army, September 18, 2014, Sutton, J). [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 5:50 pm by admin
Click Here Settlement Reached at Sutton Brook Disposal Area Superfund Site in Massachusetts. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm by fjhinojosa
Gonzalez is cited in the following case: Kim Cramton v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 6:00 am by Sandy Levinson
”  One might compare this, ruefully, with the fact that not only Holder, but also his boss, the former President of the Harvard Law Review and a former member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty, never once offered an interesting observation about the United States Constitution and the vision presumably underlying it nor indicated any deep interest in molding the federal judiciary through judicial appointments. [read post]