Search for: "Roberts v. United States, et al." Results 381 - 400 of 787
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2008, 9:53 pm
• Most consumers know little about food irradiation (American Meat Institute, 1993; Bruhn, 2001) • A survey conducted at FoodNet sites in 1998-1999, indicated that the primary reason consumers would not buy irradiated foods (meat, poultry) was due to insufficient information about the risks and benefits; the survey also showed 50% of those asked were willing to buy irradiated meat and poultry and among those, 25% were willing to pay a premium price (Frenzen et… [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 8:45 am by Lyle Denniston
  The oral argument was in John Doe # 1, et al., v. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 9:52 am
For publication opinions today (3): In Robert Thompson, et al. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 11:44 am
For publication opinions today (8): Larry Keesling, et al. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 10:06 am by John Elwood
Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Amicus brief of Michigan, et al. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am by centerforartlaw
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 7:40 am by Adam Chandler
United States, and Mac’s Shell Service, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
As some observers have suggested, for example, Roberts et al. might continue to issue rulings that amount to reversals of precedent without calling them reversals.The most widely discussed example of this would be for the Court not to overrule Roe explicitly (because that would energize even some otherwise conservative voters) but instead to decide that there simply are no abortion restrictions that constitute an “undue burden. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:35 am by WIMS
ASARCO sought contribution from Union Pacific, et al defendants, under CERCLA. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 8:48 am by Scott Atwood
Zarda et al., as Co-Independent Executors of the Estate of Zarda (from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit), and No. 18– 107, R. [read post]