Search for: "United States v. Smart" Results 361 - 380 of 1,132
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2017, 11:18 am by Peter Margulies
This subsection’s language permits return to “contiguous” countries that share a border with the United States. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 10:47 am by Abbott & Kindermann
City of Berkeley); setting the baseline (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 1:21 pm by WIMS
In this Court, the parties and the United States as amicus curiae agree that the answer to this question is 'no.' [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 1:14 pm by WIMS
In this Court, the parties and the United States as amicus curiae agree that the answer to this question is 'no.' [read post]
15 May 2013, 10:47 am
 By way of contrast with the treatment of this issue in the United States, Norman takes a look at a very recent decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 451 (Kitchin, Richards and Lewison LLJ var’g [2012] EWHC 1789 (Pat) Floyd J). [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 8:55 am by WIMS
Department of State, building upon the Secretary of State's emphasis on utilizing "smart power," "economic statecraft," and "whole-of-society" approaches. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 10:50 am by Francesca Procaccini
” In the second half of his decision, Orenstein distinguishes the principle case the government appears to consistently rely on when requesting these types of orders: United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 8:59 am by Raymond McKenzie
 New York courts have interpreted § 684(3)(c) to mean in essence that  the sale of the first franchise unit is exempt from registration if the unit was only offered to a maximum of two people (See BMW Co., Inc. et al. v Workbench Inc. et al. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 1:07 pm
The use of Field Sobriety Tests has become an increasingly regular routine in the United States, as they allow police officers to make roadside determinations of intoxication. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 8:23 am by Randy Barnett
I have been asked to make the case for the confirmation of the President's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, without regard to the questions raised after the close of his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. [read post]