Search for: "United States v. Vaughn"
Results 21 - 40
of 146
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2022, 6:22 am
United States, No. 16-cv-00070 (Ct. [read post]
20 Jul 2007, 7:24 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 3:12 pm
Like Jeralyn, mcjoan has a good analysis of the just released Al Haramein v. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 9:00 am
On that same date, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark Windsor v. [read post]
8 Aug 2009, 12:01 am
See United States v. [read post]
30 Sep 2021, 1:43 pm
On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the question of whether the 1962 U.S. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 4:11 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 7:34 am
Brown)United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 2:06 pm
District Judge Vaughn R. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 4:07 am
Garland (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys conducted a reasonable search for records concerning the medical leave of an Assistant U.S. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 5:20 pm
Today, April 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued the following order transfering the motion for consideration by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Filed order (STEPHEN R. [read post]
24 Sep 2016, 11:31 am
United States, 635 F. [read post]
19 Jun 2010, 7:06 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 12:21 pm
Vaughn v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 3:08 am
Because the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA’) airspace redesign projects throughout the United States have apparently negatively impacted hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people, and because we have received a number of requests for a discussion of the bases for the currently pending challenge to the FAA’s SoCal Metroplex airspace redesign project, a copy of the Opening Brief of Petitioners City of Culver City, California; Santa Monica Canyon… [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 9:29 am
See Reep v. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 8:10 am
United States, No. 08–1314, 2008 U.S. [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 9:34 am
§ 241 to prosecute conspiracies against the free exercise of the right to vote, constituted fair warning under the controlling standard from United States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 4:52 am
State v. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 12:29 pm
And if a judge’s personal characteristics were relevant, why shouldn’t the six current United States Supreme Court justices who are Catholics be excluded from ruling on a case about the religious freedom of Catholics? [read post]
