Search for: "US v. John Doe" Results 3781 - 3800 of 11,115
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2018, 12:13 pm by Hayley Evans
Circuit Court’s judgment affirming Judge Tanya Chutkan’s April 19 transfer injunction in Doe v. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:17 pm by Robert Chesney
  Meanwhile, here’s my most recent previous post on the transfer issue in Doe v. [read post]
3 May 2018, 5:02 am by Eugene Volokh
And the following year, John Wood's History of the Administration of John Adams (1802) likewise stated, The prosecutions of Lyon and Callender, of Cooper and Holt, are the best commentary upon the Sedition law. [read post]
3 May 2018, 3:44 am by John Buhl
Specifically, this is to prevent “hybrid dividends” that receive a deduction in the foreign country when paid to the U.S. and when received in the United States, resulting in effectively no tax on that flow of income.[8] The participation exemption excludes ordinary foreign profits paid to parent corporations in the form of dividends, but it does not exclude capital gains. [read post]
3 May 2018, 3:32 am by Scott Bomboy
To what extent does a President have to respond to a subpoena request? [read post]
2 May 2018, 4:12 pm by Chris Attig
It is this paradigm for which the Court uses the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup metaphor: does blending chocolate (claim form) with peanut butter (service records showing treatment of a condition in service) really make an informal claim? [read post]
1 May 2018, 9:50 am by Adam Feldman
This figure, though, does not account for the fact that the term does not start on the exact same day every term. [read post]
28 Apr 2018, 12:23 pm by Quinta Jurecic
Ben Sasse spoke for a number of the bill’s critics when he voiced concern that this provision would be unconstitutional as a matter of separation of powers: “Many of us think we are bound” by Justice Antonin Scalia’s lone dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 1:32 pm by Anthony Gaughan
For instance, they describe a a short but telling November 2017 exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Scott Gant (counsel for the Department of the Interior) in the case of Patchak v. [read post]