Search for: "Hunt v. United States" Results 481 - 500 of 1,101
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Sep 2015, 2:07 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today ruled that several parts of the District’s gun registration law violate the Second Amendment. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 7:33 am by Joel R. Brandes
The parties had one child, L.E.W., born April 3, 2009, who was a dual citizen of Canada and the United States. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 12:52 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal PracticeComputers Denied Suppression Despite Seizure Pursuant to Warrant Issued on 'Tainted Evidence' United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
For example, Chief Justice Warren’s deferential approach to Congress in United States v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 5:55 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday the Court announced that it had granted review in United States v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 6:04 am by David G. Badertscher
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice Admission Rejected; Defendant Responsible For Less Cocaine Than for Minimum Sentence United States v. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 2:01 pm by Amy Howe
Wyoming (Jan. 8): Validity of 1868 treaty giving Crow Tribe of Indians the right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States” Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:00 pm by JD Hull
Erwin Griswold, Law and Lawyers in the United States, 65 (Cambridge, Harv. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 5:09 pm by FDABlog HPM
The court noted that the group would have to prove that at least one individual in the group had “standing to sue in their own right,” as required under Hunt v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 5:02 am by David Markus
And when the sole opinion of the day was read from the bench, in a rollicking appeal about when an agency action is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 6:56 am by Rosalind English
In the latter case the Strasbourg Court rejected as manifestly ill-founded the  applicants’ contention that the hunting bans in the United Kingdom constituted an interference with their private life. [read post]