Search for: "U. S. Federal Government"
Results 4741 - 4760
of 5,046
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2009, 9:24 am
But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, Bolling v. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 11:59 am
U-Haul Company of Minnesota, No. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 10:28 am
Washington, 541 U. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 7:22 am
S. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 9:37 am
See 42 U. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 5:19 am
Arizona, 384 U. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 3:09 pm
S. 353, 299 U. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 7:34 am
’S. to live. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 12:39 pm
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A)–(B) and 28 U. [read post]
7 Jun 2009, 10:59 pm
On June 1, 2009 the December 2008 Rule will still be in effect and will apply to this employer's application. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 8:12 am
” The Principles address issues including contract formation, the relationship between federal intellectual property law and private contracts governed by state law, the enforcement of contract terms governing quality and remedies, the meaning of breach, indemnification against infringement, automated disablement, and contract interpretation. [read post]
31 May 2009, 8:41 pm
According to news media reports, the two Senate leaders are at odds about whether we should continue to have HMO's competing in an insurance exchange or just cover everyone from birth to death under a unified Federal Government health insurance plan. [read post]
29 May 2009, 8:10 am
Given our assumption about linguistic practices, Stein's hypothesis would entail that, if a state legislature applied for protection against spousal abuse, the federal government would have a constitutional obligation to respond by providing such protection. [read post]
28 May 2009, 8:38 am
Tennessee, 532 U. [read post]
28 May 2009, 7:07 am
JURIST's Paper Chase reports an interesting development: Former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies [professional profiles] announced [video] Wednesday that they have filed suit [complaint, PDF] challenging California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive], Proposition 8 [text, PDF], on federal Constitutional grounds. [read post]
22 May 2009, 10:11 am
” “[D]etailed factual allegations” are not required, Twombly, 550 U. [read post]
22 May 2009, 9:29 am
That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people who the Government claims are likely do engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants. [read post]
22 May 2009, 7:19 am
S. [read post]
18 May 2009, 6:30 pm
See 550 U. [read post]
18 May 2009, 3:46 pm
The federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. [read post]
