Search for: "Reiter v Reiter" Results 4441 - 4460 of 6,282
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Mar 2012, 9:01 pm by Rick St. Hilaire
 In that pleading, government lawyers reiterate that Lewis is charged with purchasing smuggled Egyptian antiquities transported into the United States, smuggling three Egyptian nesting coffins, conspiring to smuggle, and money laundering in support of smuggling.The prosecution argues that "[i]t is 'axiomatic' that a criminal defendant 'may not challenge a facially valid indictment prior to trial for insufficient evidence,'" quoting federal case… [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 12:50 pm by Mark Alderman
IN THE COURTS There are now only three weeks until the Supreme Court hears Florida v. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 12:30 pm by P.J. Blount
– The Volokh Conspiracy Are Historical Cell-Site Data Protected Under the Fourth Amendment After United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 6:57 pm by Francis Pileggi
Despite the due diligence, and even though Micromet had contacted another potential acquirer who was not interested, Amgen refused to increase its offer but reiterated a $9.00 per share offer on September 1, 2011. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 9:26 pm by Lawrence Liang
I would argue however, that each reiteration of the scientific rationality of the bans, whether in be in terms of ‘agricultural interests’ or in terms of the organisation of animal husbandry obfuscates more than it reveals. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 1:08 pm by Estelle Derclaye
” This morning, the Court of Justice delivered its judgement in Case C-604/10, Football Dataco & others v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:30 am by Kiran Bhat
Yesterday the Court heard arguments in Armour v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 2:29 pm by Leanne Buckley-Thomson
The support of Strasbourg jurisprudence was noted, in particular  the cases of Sergey Kuznetsov v Russia [2008] ECHR 1170, Lucas v UK (App No 39013/02) 18 March 2003, and Appleby v UK (App No 44306/98). [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 12:07 pm
”Discussion of the matter continued and the probate court once more reiterated that “[t]itle to property is not within my jurisdiction. [read post]