Search for: "U.S. v. Euba*"
Results 21 - 40
of 42
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2014, 11:46 am
., Jennifer Riley, and Alexis Robertson On June 2, 2014, the U.S. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 10:50 am
United States, 319 U.S. 190, 216 (1943); Yakus v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 6:09 am
U.S, 514 F.3d 1194 (U.S. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 3:15 am
KF 4541 V555 2012 The writing and ratification of the U.S. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 7:00 am
”) International occupation law determines the exercise of authority in a territory by combining three requirements for “effective control” (a term of art with no definite source in international law): the territory is “actually placed under the authority of the hostile army[,]” and “authority has been established and can be exercised” (Hague Regulations, Art. 42); the state in power “exercises the functions of government in such territory”… [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 7:50 am
(See, e.g., U.S. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 9:07 am
Florida, ---U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010) and Roper v. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 4:20 am
In Eubanks v. [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 6:05 pm
STRAHAN v. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 3:28 am
In MELNICK v. [read post]
14 May 2010, 1:06 pm
" Gall, 552 U.S. at 50; United States v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 4:37 am
Tracey, No. 84 Civ. 3412 (KMW), 1991 U.S. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 5:00 am
See Caudill v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 4:00 am
Links are sorted by> U.S. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 6:39 pm
Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 332-34, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 1106-07 (1943), on the grounds that judicial dissolution of corporations is a matter uniquely to be addressed by the New York state courts. [read post]
20 Jul 2008, 11:28 pm
Defenders of Wildlife v. [read post]
23 Mar 2008, 9:03 am
U.S. [read post]
23 Nov 2007, 2:33 am
Spatt U.S. [read post]
23 Nov 2007, 2:33 am
Spatt U.S. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 3:28 am
Galveston City Company, 111 U.S. 170 (1884), the United States Supreme Court observed that the limitations defense of an agent would also protect those on whose behalf the agent acted as agent. 111 U.S. at 174 ("But manifestly the statute of limitations that barred the claims against Menard . . . would equally protect those on whose behalf Menard acted as agent"). [read post]
