Search for: "United States v. Coughlin"
Results 21 - 40
of 72
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2023, 1:42 pm
Buzzard (Major Crimes Act; Discovery; Cherokee Nation) United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 8:52 pm
Scott v. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, NY (Paul J. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, NY (Paul J. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 6:17 am
When they returned to the United States, they were ordered to quarantine for 21 days, and police officers were deployed outside their apartments to make sure they complied with this directive. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
" Citing SCS Commc’ns, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
" Citing SCS Commc’ns, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 10:23 am
In United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 2:59 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 6:48 am
United States, 674 F. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 4:00 am
Whitehead, In God We Trust: The Judicial Establishment of American Civil Religion, (John Marshall Law Review, Vol. 43, p. 869, 2010).Nicholas Walter, The Status of Religious Arbitration in the United States and Canada, (April 2, 2011).Heather Kennedy, Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance: Will the United States Supreme Court’s Circular Reasoning in its Decision of Christian Legal Society v. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 8:35 am
The first is when a statute that explicitly strips the government of immunity – specifying, for example, that the “United States is not immune from liability under this section. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:33 pm
—Long Beach Unit, 8 NY3d 465, 470). [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:33 pm
—Long Beach Unit, 8 NY3d 465, 470). [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:09 am
” Coughlin v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 2:22 pm
Sentencing Commission, 2007 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics Tables Sentencing Memorandum in United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 1:41 pm
But the Supremes did rule in Ali v. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 7:41 am
In Eisai Co. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 4:00 am
Identification of the records demanded.Noting that Kirsch and Starvaggi had "reasonably described" the requested emails thus enabling the Board to identify and produce the records, the Appellate Division, citing Konigsberg v Coughlin, 68 NY2d 245, held that the Board "cannot evade the broad disclosure provisions of [the] statute . . . upon the naked allegation that the request will require review of thousands of records. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 5:11 am
United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935); Nortz v. [read post]