Search for: "United States v. Cutting" Results 421 - 440 of 4,670
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jan 2017, 8:46 pm by Howard Friedman
Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095 (2010) he wrote a dissent from the denial of an en banc rehearing in a case which held that memorial crosses donated by the Utah Highway Patrol Association and placed on public property to commemorate fallen troopers violate the Establishment Clause.⇾ In United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 11:30 am
§ 231, is facially violative of the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and (2) Defendant Alberto R. [read post]
14 Apr 2018, 4:58 am by SHG
On June 26, 2017, I rejected the proffered plea agreement in United States v. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 11:28 am by Richard M. Re
United States arguably poses a clash between two of the Supreme Court’s recent passions: strict adherence to statutory texts and cutting back on the exclusionary rule. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 5:00 am by Eugene Volokh
Congress already repealed the mandate through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 5:44 pm by Gene Quinn
Chakrabarty On June 16, 1980, 30 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark patentable subject matter decision in the case of Diamond v. [read post]
30 Apr 2005, 11:07 am
At issue, then, is the continued vitality of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 3:49 pm
United States Supreme Court Sets 1:1 Ratio for Punitive Damage Awards under Federal Maritime Law and Reduces $2.5 Billion Award in Exxon Valdez Class Action to $500 Million, Ending 20-year Class Action Fight The United States Supreme Court issued a stunning ruling yesterday, holding that a punitive damage to compensatory damage ratio of 1:1 is a "fair upper limit" in federal maritime cases. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 5:16 am by Quinta Jurecic, Alan Z. Rozenshtein
As if to calm the itchy fingers of a million Twitter pundits, the brief emphasizes that “[t]he United States does not express any view regarding the potential criminal liability of any person for the events of January 6, 2021, or acts connected with those events. [read post]