Search for: "Petite v. United States"
Results 4781 - 4800
of 13,625
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2016, 11:41 am
The petition asks this Court to review two questions related to this provision: 1. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 8:08 am
On December 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in State v. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 6:54 am
Facebook, Inc., available at: gov.uscourts.dcd.224921.73.0.pdf (courtlistener.com) & Opinion in State of New York et. al. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 8:48 am
” A list of this week’s featured petitions is below: Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 11:54 am
State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 6:13 am
United Debt Holdings, LLC (Debt Collection; Tribal Exhaustion) State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.htmlState in Interest of M.D. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 1:56 am
United States, respondent-appellees
U.S. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 10:57 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 1:09 pm
Eisentrager that aliens detained as enemies outside the United States are not “entitled, as a constitutional right, to sue in some court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus. [read post]
11 May 2023, 1:16 pm
United States, Jackson v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 6:28 am
In Carrasco v. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 9:06 pm
The United States petitioned for certiorari, which was granted in January of this year. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 11:51 am
This case and other petitions of the week are below: Jennings v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 1:02 pm
Feder v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 6:00 am
This morning at 9:30, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District will hear oral argument in County of Santa Clara v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 2:45 am
United States, in which the Court will consider two issues relating to federal computer crimes, for this blog; I did the same for Green v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 9:59 am
On Monday, March 21, 2016, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter of Samsung Electronics v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 1:49 pm
In Life Technologies Corp. v. [read post]
