Search for: "United States v. Blank" Results 401 - 420 of 700
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 May 2012, 5:16 am by Jonathan H. Adler
This failing is what doomed the Gun Free School Zones Act in United States v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 6:17 am by Rob Robinson
California Court Declines to Follow Race Tires, Allows Taxation of eDiscovery Costs - bit.ly/IZoWhW (K&L Gates) Peck Wins By Submission; Parties Get Shot At Title Fight - bit.ly/Jfheio (eLessons Learned) Random Sample Calculations And My Prediction That 300,000 Lawyers Will Be Using Random Sampling By 2022 – bit.ly/IBIaZ5 (Ralph Losey) “Reasonableness” is Key When Assessing E-Discovery Efforts – bit.ly/IZp7d9 (Mike Hamilton) Reducing… [read post]
8 May 2012, 9:17 am by Dan Markel
Sawyer,[1] to have helped ensure submission of the United States’ amicus brief in Brown v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 5:24 am by Benjamin Wittes
He adds that having done this for quite a while, he doesn’t accept press accounts point blank. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 8:05 pm by Lawrence Solum
Holder, deportation of taxpayers from the United States. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 8:26 am by rreier
”  A March 22, 2012 decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois (State Bank of Toulon v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 8:25 am
To be sure, during the oral argument, Justice Breyer may have undermined the effectiveness of his hypo by appearing to agree with Michael Carvin (for the NFIB) that the argument for federal power in the inoculation case is of a piece with the argument for federal power in United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
The United States also argues that the mandate is necessary and proper to carry out the law's insurance reforms. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 7:30 am by Howard Ullman
 Writing on a somewhat blank slate, the court wrote: “[B]ecause the market for [stealth products] consists of a single purchaser — the United States Army — there is not a dangerous probability that [defendant] will be able to charge a supracompetitive price. [read post]