Search for: "U. S. v. Smith*"
Results 461 - 480
of 684
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2013, 5:38 am
UNDP, UNEP, UNFCCC, UN Global Compact, UNIDO) [the letter 'u' appears between those brackets more frequently than in the standard English Scrabble set, notes the IPKat] and the World Bank’s Climate Technology Program. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm
Whole Women's Health v. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 3:37 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 8:12 am
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia held that, “[u]nder the specific circumstances presented by the global COVID-19 pandemic, . [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 5:32 am
[7]. 397 U. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 8:07 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 6:50 am
(2) Is the district court’s order denying the appellants’ objections to the remedial map appealable under 28 U. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 12:00 pm
U. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 7:45 am
The Dormant Commerce Clause balancing test (the Pike v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 7:09 am
In today’s case (Zawadzki v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 12:08 am
State v. [read post]
8 Sep 2012, 11:44 am
U. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 11:23 am
Karo and United States v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 4:37 am
Proof of the `[u]nauthorized and wrongful exercise of dominion and control over another's personal property, to [the] exclusion of or inconsistent with [the] rights of the owner,’ is sufficient to prove embezzlement. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 2:16 pm
64 U. [read post]
13 May 2022, 2:32 pm
Two weeks ago, in United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am
On November 14, 2014, in Priests for Life v. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 5:19 pm
Gaughan v. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
”[8] The court went on to observe that “[u]sing enforcement actions to address crypto-assets is simply the latest chapter in a long history of giving meaning to the securities laws through iterative application to new situations. [read post]
18 Sep 2023, 4:34 am
A Tortured Litigation Path In Matter of Rozof v Rozof, 2023 NY Slip Op 33125(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County Aug. 31, 2023]), Mark, Linda, and Judith first sued in 2016 in Nassau County Supreme Court for judicial supervision of the winding up of 391 1st Street Company following the death in 2011 of one general partner, their mother, Edna, and following the withdrawal of another general partner, Judith, just days before they commenced their lawsuit. [read post]
