Search for: "U.S. v. One Single Family Residence"
Results 21 - 40
of 384
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Sep 2021, 2:00 am
Van Leer v. [read post]
23 May 2015, 9:00 pm
., Petitioner, v. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 7:58 am
One of the appeals, Holder v. [read post]
23 Oct 2022, 7:35 am
See Ermini v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 7:31 am
California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) (hotel patron); McDonald v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 12:03 pm
Who should pay for a nursing home stay: the resident and his/her family... or the government? [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 6:27 am
Perhaps vexingly to California residents, the U.S. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 9:55 am
This was not the whim of a single police officer. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 7:22 am
In Rakas v. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 5:26 am
U.S. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 5:19 am
(For what it's worth, South Carolina is one of several U.S. states in which adultery is still a crime.)The Court of Appeals also noted that the Family Court hadpreviously granted the parties' divorce based on one year's continuous separation. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 5:00 am
However, in 2000, the U.S. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 10:19 am
Had the current version of the travel ban been in place since 9/11, it would not have prevented the entry of a single terrorist (even one who did not commit any attacks on US soil). [read post]
26 May 2023, 12:42 pm
Abbott v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 4:44 am
Canestri, 518 F.2d 269, 273 (2nd Cir. 1975) (search warrant for a single-family residence cannot be frustrated by a declaration that one of the rooms belongs to a party not named in the warrant); United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 12:50 pm
In the U.S. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:01 pm
” That parent need not still be a resident, nor have been one for any particular length of time. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 9:25 am
While he obeyed the laws of this country and paid his fair share of taxes, Cosino had one problem while in the U.S. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 9:12 am
One indictment (United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 6:18 am
And because Halperin concedes that the `single act’ rule applies, he therefore cannot aggregate his claim with those of the absent class members. . . .Halperin v. [read post]
