Search for: "United States v. Heard" Results 5021 - 5040 of 8,393
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Sep 2013, 5:10 am by Susan Brenner
Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of [a number of] exceptions applies to the particular statement being made. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 8:00 am by Raffaela Wakeman
You’ve likely heard:  in a bid to avert action by the United States, Russia has proposed that Syria abandon its chemical weapons stockpiles. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 5:48 am by Nycole A. Thompson
Gomez, Chief Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, recently heard a motion by the plaintiffs to substitute a party in the matter of Richards v. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 6:01 pm by Josh Blackman, guest-blogging
Why on earth “would it have looked bad” for the Solicitor General to be involved in the most important case the United States has argued in a decade, where the entire DOJ was coordinating a defense from day one? [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 9:41 am by Josh Blackman, guest-blogging
Writing a brief for the United States before the Supreme Court is a very different enterprise than writing a brief for a private party. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 1:08 pm by Dennis Crouch
United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977). [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 4:34 pm by James R. Marsh
United States, 08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 4:34 pm by James R. Marsh
United States, 08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 4:34 pm by James R. Marsh
United States, 08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
  Make Good, But Moderate, Use of Skills Courses, Clinicals and the Like:  One complaint often heard about law schools today (and it is perhaps amplified by the new economic normal for law firms) is that they don’t do enough to produce “practice-ready” graduates. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 11:37 am by Erik B. von Zeipel
    Unauthorized Access to his former employer’s Computers In support of the “no unauthorized access” argument, Nosal argued that: (1) under the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in this case (United States v. [read post]