Search for: "Quick v. United States"
Results 461 - 480
of 2,099
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2009, 8:26 pm
Mark Lift Indus., Inc., 366 S.C. 308, 622 S.E.3d 213 (2005) addressed this issue in a certified question from the United States District Court. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:42 am
Cohan v. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 12:28 pm
In his opinion for the majority in Jones v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 1:26 pm
[#Air, #Water, #CADC] Quick Summaries Of Additional Cases During The Break Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 6:38 am
” The Chief Justice’s comments drew a quick response from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (“What is troubling is that [Citizens United] opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections—drowning out the voices of average Americans. [read post]
2 Jun 2023, 8:22 am
Creative expression through the sale of parody-based dog toys has recently caught the attention of the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 11:13 am
In so doing, the Fifth Circuit rejected Molina-Martinez’s contention, based on Supreme Court dicta in United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 10:29 am
Moonlight 101, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, 2019 WL 1466968 (6th Cir. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 9:44 pm
See United States v. [read post]
16 May 2016, 11:24 am
What: Electronic Frontier Foundation v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 10:07 am
United States is a classification case from the U.S. [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 8:27 am
Or, at a minimum, explain why it comes out 180 degrees differently than the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 7:09 am
The ACLJ is planning to file an amicus brief in United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 2:10 pm
United States: What happened? [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 1:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 11:12 am
See, e.g., Chrysler v. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 6:24 am
This is recommended reading for anyone who wants a quick background on the state of post-sale restrictions. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 9:07 am
That was after Furman v. [read post]
17 Feb 2008, 7:14 pm
§ 922 that prohibit non-residents of the United States from receiving or selling firearms for non-sporting purposes. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 8:40 am
The settlement says: subdivisions (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5) of California Business and Professions Code section 22677 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution facially and as applied to Plaintiff The state also must pay X $345,576 to cover its challenge costs. [read post]
