Search for: "Long v. Department of Army"
Results 21 - 40
of 493
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Feb 2022, 5:01 am
Texas Department of Public Safety. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 2:21 pm
, Michael Sipos and Gary Smith v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 12:53 pm
(See McKelvey v. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 7:00 am
The case, Rostker v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 6:40 pm
The New Jersey case, City of Long Branch v. [read post]
15 Apr 2008, 2:11 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2017, 8:31 am
Among the cases granted was National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
15 Sep 2019, 12:28 pm
The justices in the Rapanos v. [read post]
13 May 2016, 6:22 am
Pryor timely appealed to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, and instructed the clerk to serve the complaint on the Director of ODJSF and the Department of the Army, but did not name the Department of the Army in his notice of appeal. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 6:19 am
The case, Gate Guard Services, L.P. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 12:00 pm
Department of the Army finalized a rule adding an applicability date to the 2015 Rule (that never went into effect) defining “waters of the United States. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 10:58 am
Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 10:00 am
The nearly-singular focus of last week’s oral argument in Hatim v. [read post]
15 Feb 2019, 8:29 am
The emergency declaration may only apply to Defense Department funds already allocated by Congress, but a long legal fight appears to be on the horizon. [read post]
25 May 2023, 1:33 pm
Today, in Sackett v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 4:51 am
Vo and Brady v. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 8:53 am
Army reservist. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 7:57 pm
Consider the following domestic surveillance initiatives: the Palmer Raids, COINTELPRO, Watergate, and the army surveillance of Americans that motivated Laird v. [read post]
23 Jun 2023, 11:20 am
[x] In United States v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 2:33 pm
The government faced an uphill battle in Wednesday’s argument in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
