Search for: "Ex Parte United States"
Results 4201 - 4220
of 5,114
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jun 2010, 7:47 am
Or anyplace else in the United States. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 5:52 am
Starting in 2014, the IPAB must submit a proposal to Congress and to the President annually on January 15, unless – It is a Proposal Year for which the Chief Actuary has made a determination that the projected Medicare per capita growth rate for the Implementation Year does not exceed the Medicare per capita target growth rate for such year; or It is a Proposal Year for which the Chief Actuary makes a determination in the Determination Year that the projected… [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 4:56 am
Applera Corp (Patently-O) (271 Patent Blog) District Court S D Indiana: Stay pending reexam lifted prior to issuance of reexam certificate (Docket Report) District Court N D Illinois: United States is not an indispensible party to false marking action: ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 7:26 am
Thomas No. 09-940, United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 10:41 am
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); see also Virginia v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 2:03 pm
Thompkins June 2, 2010 United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 7:53 am
Justice Scalia concurred in part and in the judgment. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 7:53 am
Justice Scalia concurred in part and in the judgment. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 7:12 am
United States, the Supreme Court held, 6–3, that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which requires convicted sex offenders to register with local authorities when they move from one state to another, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect. [read post]
28 May 2010, 5:00 am
United States the Supreme Court ruled that a five part test exists to find “plain error:” (1) there is an “error”; (2) the error is “clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute”; (3) the error “affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means” it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”; and (4) “the error seriously affect[s] the fairness,… [read post]
27 May 2010, 10:21 am
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), by contrast, appears to be taking steps to give the statutory requirement real meaning. [read post]
26 May 2010, 10:16 pm
The determination of the secretary of state’s true purpose in making the deportation order was pivotal to assessing the lawfulness of the detention (R v Governor of Brixton Prison Ex p Soblen (No2) (1963) 2 QB 243 CA). [read post]
26 May 2010, 5:41 pm
United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. [read post]
25 May 2010, 8:19 pm
United States (1997) and United States v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 12:23 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
25 May 2010, 11:35 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
24 May 2010, 9:10 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
24 May 2010, 8:06 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:52 am
When the case of United States v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:46 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
