Search for: "W. D." Results 4721 - 4740 of 13,760
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Feb 2017, 1:37 pm
This post examines an opinion from the Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso: O’Brien v. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 11:52 pm
Itzkowitz Shifrinson, NATO Non-expansion and German Reunification Nicholas D. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 9:30 pm by Justin Daniel
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has reportedly stated that to receive the support of Senate Democrats, Judge Gorsuch will need to “prove himself to be within the legal mainstream. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 2:18 pm by Russell Spivak, Jordan Brunner
In response to outcry over President Trump’s reorganization of the National Security Council—and particularly Steve Bannon’s elevation to the NSC and his permanent invite to the NSC’s Principals Committee—Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence announced that he was introducing a bill to codify and strictly limit NSC membership. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 10:32 am by Wystan Ackerman
The opinion addresses Rule 23(b)(2) in detail, explaining how any classwide injunctive relief must satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), and that “if redressing the class members’ injuries requires time-consuming inquiry into individual circumstances or characteristics of class members or groups of class members,” certification may be inappropriate. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 5:40 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
  [/mobile-card][mobile-card]  If your taxable income for 2016 is less than $100,000 and does not include tips not reported on a form W-2, then you may be able to file form 1040EZ or form 1040-A. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 3:57 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The Order was already issued by the Enlarged Board in November last year, but the full decision and its reasoning became available only just now. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 2:43 pm by Andrew Hamm
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), then the majority leader of the Senate, enacted a rule change to eliminate the filibuster for certain types of nominations, excluding those for the Supreme Court. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 6:08 am by Eric Goldman
  The court began by noting that “[i]n order to justify an ex parte seizure order, the moving plaintiff must meet an exacting standard” and that “[w]hen the defendant’s identity is known and notice could feasibly be given, ex parte seizures are proper only if providing notice to the defendant would render fruitless the further prosecution of the action. [read post]