Search for: "United States v. State of Washington" Results 4481 - 4500 of 9,057
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2021, 12:04 pm by Mary Mock
  The U.S. government filed a civil-forfeiture action in which the named defendants were the objects themselves: The United States of America v. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 12:04 pm by Mary Mock
  The U.S. government filed a civil-forfeiture action in which the named defendants were the objects themselves: The United States of America v. [read post]
13 Oct 2009, 12:32 pm
b.Did the Sixth Circuit exceed its authority under AEDPA when it applied United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 2:38 am by Lyle Denniston
”, is to put pressure on the state legislature to make Arizona the 38th ratifying state to satisfy Article V of the Constitution. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 7:00 am
Yet Europe and the United States are at loggerheads over how regulation fits in the Rethink. [read post]
2 May 2017, 3:44 am by Edith Roberts
United States, demonstrated that “the administration’s hard line on the standard for criminalization has gone so far as to alarm several members of the Supreme Court. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 6:00 am by Sherica Celine
” 15 The remaining “lesser” or “non-core” factors included the amount of skill required for the work, the degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the putative employer, and whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production. 16 The 2021 IC Rule further provided that it was “highly unlikely” that these non-core factors could outweigh the combined probative value of the core factors. 17 The Final Rule rescinds… [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 1:49 pm by Marty Lederman
  Such a plan discontinuance is something the law would permit Catholic Charities to do; it’s something that many employers across the United States are likely to do; and presumably it would not be prohibited by Catholic Charities’ (or the Diocese’s) religion. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 2:23 pm
  “International relations” was not a basis for distinguishing Bauman(which it refers to as “Daimler”):Daimler is binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court which this Court is bound to follow. [read post]
2 Oct 2012, 1:08 pm by Richard Renner
Case number: 11-cv-1271 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Case filed: July 13, 2011 Qualifying Judgment/Order: July 23, 2012 09/04/2012 12/03/2012 2012-83 SEC v. [read post]