Search for: "Connell v. United States" Results 21 - 40 of 197
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2013, 6:57 am by Raffaela Wakeman
Earlier this week, Military Judge James Pohl, the presiding judge at the military commission case United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 9:14 am by Wells Bennett
Fresh from a security scrub are these two items in United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 2:54 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
On March 2, 2011, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of Allstate Insurance Company based upon a Complaint for declaratory relief in the case of Allstate v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 9:10 am by Alex Loomis
Conceding that no cases were directly on point, Connell cites United States v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 10:51 am
THE UNITED KINGDOM - 57646/00 [2007] ECHR 401 (22 May 2007) O’CONNELL AND OTHERS v. [read post]
21 Oct 2020, 9:36 am
Urgenda Foundation Niccolò Ridi, United States—Anti-dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber from Canada Piotr Uhma, Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18 Hannah Woolaver, R v. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 4:31 pm by Ronald Mann
The tone of Hawkins’ argument was set three sentences into his presentation, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interrupted to ask pointedly: “Is it not the case that no other political entity would be immune from such a quiet-title suit, not the United States, not a state of the United States, not a foreign government? [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 10:30 am by Wells Bennett
Judge James Pohl has tweaked the calendar in United States v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 2:15 pm by David Ryan
General Martins begins by calling Judge Pohl’s attention to the ‘ten-category framework’ from his 2014 discovery order in United States v. al Nashiri. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 3:58 pm by Sean Hanover
United States, 356 U.S. 369, 383 (1958) (Justice Frankfurter concurring); United States v. [read post]