Search for: "PAGE v. UNITED STATES"
Results 4481 - 4500
of 9,966
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Apr 2015, 3:47 am
” A few weeks ago, the IMF published its FSAP review of the United States, covering banking, insurance and securities. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
The ACA provides that territories of the United States (e.g., Guam) are “States,” for purposes of this law. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 11:23 am
Had that been the case, the New York State and United States legislatures would have added language providing for such exceptions. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 4:22 am
Or, more accurately, yes, we could, but not after People v. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 7:19 am
Norris, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 574, 37 C.M.R. 194 (to be admissible, must be verbatim); United States v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 3:52 pm
The United States is party to 51, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 11:06 am
”Citing Steele v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 10:00 am
”Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 11:47 am
Page 1 2009 NY Slip Op 51445(U) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 8:56 am
Natural Resources Defense v. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 2:42 pm
Two interesting amicus briefs in Obergefell v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 7:42 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 4:11 pm
Defendant cites no facts from anywhere in the United States outside New York City to establish that American citizens overwhelmingly chose air guns for "the core lawful purpose of self- Page 10 defense" (554 US at 630), rather than for sports and recreation. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 10:52 am
In Pollock v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 4:05 pm
As for the phrase "bear arms," the Court adopted Justice Ginsburg's definition in Muscarello v United States, 524 US 125, 143 (1998), which it said "accurately captured the natural meaning of bear arms, '" that is," wear, bear or carry... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" Page 9… [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 3:49 pm
Clark v. [read post]
4 Apr 2015, 4:00 pm
" United States v Yancey, 621 F3d 681, 684-85 (7th Cir. 2010). [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 3:49 pm
Page 6 To Be Cont.... [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 12:23 pm
I mean, the United States would treat both the same, right? [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 7:51 am
Briefly: The George Washington Law Review’s new “On the Docket” page features commentary on recent Court decisions, including comments by GW law professors on the Alabama redistricting cases, Young, and B&B Hardware v. [read post]
