Search for: "UNITED STATES v. MERCHANT"
Results 441 - 460
of 729
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2012, 1:37 am
Citizens United v. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
The case of the day is Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 2:30 pm
For example, in Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 2:20 pm
The great object [of the statute]… was to protect the merchant vessels of the United States and their crews from piratical aggressions. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 9:46 pm
The case is Brown v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 3:22 pm
Unite Here, 601 F. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 11:37 am
In Hoffman v. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 4:39 am
Roosevelt asked the men of the Philippines to fight, promising them United States citizenship and veterans benefits in return. 200,000 fought. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 9:46 am
ARS National Services, Inc., 09-CV—780 JAH in United States District Court of California. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Coito v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 11:51 am
United States, which involved the question of whether fleeing from the police in a car was a violent felony, and Graham v. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 1:34 pm
Francis v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 6:31 am
And its reach may have an effect on pending litigation against Visa, MasterCard and certain of their member banks in other countries, such as the In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation in the United States. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 1:25 pm
In Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 2:56 pm
United States, 655 F.3d 1124, 1132-34 (9th Cir. 2011)). [read post]
1 May 2012, 11:03 am
The United States also imposes the duty to assist upon ships. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 9:48 am
In Sunbelt Environmental v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm
In Caminiti v. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied a preliminary injunction in Safari Club International v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 5:32 am
“First, [they] contend that the activities of the poker companies took place outside of the United States and therefore were not conducted in, and did not violate, the law of any state. [read post]
