Search for: "United States v. Circuit Judges" Results 5021 - 5040 of 16,267
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Oct 2017, 8:55 am by Amy Howe
The highest-profile grant of the day came in United States v. [read post]
15 Oct 2017, 7:34 pm by Larry
Of course, the 1983 case was under the old Tariff Schedule of the United States. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 12:04 pm by Nathaniel M. Glasser and Kate B. Rhodes
  Earlier this year the DOJ filed a brief, without being asked by the court, in a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Zarda v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 12:04 pm by Nathaniel M. Glasser and Kate B. Rhodes
  Earlier this year the DOJ filed a brief, without being asked by the court, in a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Zarda v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 9:19 am by John Elwood
For example, a case with a caption like United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 4:16 am by SHG
Under United States Supreme Court precedent, it is relatively easy to sue police officers who commit misconduct, but federal law still provides enormous protections to prosecutors. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 3:04 am by Michael Lowe
United States This case comes out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed on May 11, 2017 (read it here). [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 3:25 am by NCC Staff
But the case was heard by a full en banc appeals court, with nine judges voting against the state and three judges dissenting. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 1:35 pm by Christopher Wilkinson
  In April, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit rejected this claim, but the Second Circuit granted en banc review. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 12:30 pm by Jo Dale Carothers
Kraft Foods, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 12:30 pm by Jo Dale Carothers
Kraft Foods, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. [read post]