Search for: "People v. Nations" Results 441 - 460 of 18,516
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jul 2020, 6:02 am by Derek T. Muller
I’ve taken a day to chew over the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiafalo v. [read post]
18 Dec 2007, 5:14 am
Let's take another look at yesterday's defense motion in USA v. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 5:01 am by Adira Levine
District Court for the District of Columbia handed down its decision in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 5:14 am
The lobbying rules assume that public officials and bank officials are different categories of people. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm by David Super
“We have the opportunity as a result of that to have a supermajority, even though...we may not even be in an absolute majority when it comes to the people who agree with us. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 11:23 am by Andrew Kent
But the Court’s 2008 decision in Boumediene v. [read post]
8 Apr 2018, 4:06 pm by John Bellinger
   For example, when Ronald Reagan signed amendments to the INA in 1986, he said “Our objective is … to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. [read post]
30 May 2020, 5:29 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Department of Child Safety, T.C., J.C., Navajo Nation (Indian Child Welfare Act) U.S. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 1:34 am by Rebecca Griffiths, Olswang
On 17 to 19 January 2012, the Supreme Court heard an appeal in the case of Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes . [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 10:46 am
The Woods were the Caucasian inmates, the Paisanos were the Mexican national inmates, and the South-Siders were the Hispanic-American inmates, who were primarily gang members and were the most dominant CAR. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 8:38 am by Angelo A. Paparelli
 This IMMI goes jointly to the Supreme Court for invalidating most of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in U.S. v. [read post]