Search for: "United States v. Wilson" Results 401 - 420 of 1,536
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Oct 2023, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Finchett-Maddock & Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, To Open Up: A performative rewriting of Pendragon v United Kingdom (1998) 27 EHRR CD 179 , (Helen Dancer, Bonnie Holligan and Helena Howe (eds.) [read post]
2 Oct 2007, 11:20 am
The Parties The Complainant is Facebook Inc. of Palo Alto, California, the United States of America, represented by Heller Ehrman LLP, the United States of America. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 4:08 am by Edith Roberts
” In their second opinion yesterday, Wilson v. [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In support of its argument that NJT was an "arm of the state" entitled to invoke sovereign immunity, defendants cited a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holding that NJT is entitled to invoke sovereign immunity in federal court (see Karns v Shanahan, 879 F3d 504, 519 [3d Cir 2018]). [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In support of its argument that NJT was an "arm of the state" entitled to invoke sovereign immunity, defendants cited a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holding that NJT is entitled to invoke sovereign immunity in federal court (see Karns v Shanahan, 879 F3d 504, 519 [3d Cir 2018]). [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 8:59 am by admin
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reversed and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court judge for damages. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 11:34 am by John Mikhail
., born outside of the territories that became the United States. [read post]
2 Mar 2014, 1:42 pm by Bill Stalter
   The Supreme Court has expressed concerns how the facial challenge might be used to undermine the legislative process, and accordingly, the challenging party is held to a higher standard of proof:  To succeed in a typical facial attack, [the respondent] would have to establish “that no set of circumstances exists under which [the statute] would be valid”, United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 7:00 am by Andrew Hamm
United States 19-361Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on a cert-stage amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case. [read post]