Search for: "Sharpe v. Department of Justice"
Results 501 - 515
of 515
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Oct 2007, 6:03 pm
” Presumably, the Circuit Court will provide an opportunity for the Justice Department and the Pentagon to respond. [read post]
5 Oct 2007, 2:32 pm
” The order’s sharp comment about the Justice Department’s “disruption” of lawyer-client access was a response to the Department’s argument, in court papers and to detainees’ lawyers, that Judge Urbina’s dismissal of the 14 cases meant that the protective orders were no longer in effect. [read post]
7 Aug 2007, 1:11 am
Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. [read post]
15 Jul 2007, 2:33 pm
But according to Theo Francis at the WSJ Health Blog, computerized records aren't much better than paper;And it seems that the world of ambulance chasing has reached new depths, with David Bershad of Milberg Weiss & Bershad pleading guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice. [read post]
22 Jun 2007, 1:07 pm
The cases are Boumediene v. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 2:20 pm
In today's Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has this article on Solicitor General Paul Clement - "one of the conservative legal movement's brightest stars" - who is now charged with overseeing the Justice Department's investigation into the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys; Peter Lattman weighs in here at the WSJ.com Law Blog. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 6:20 am
The FDA's first three pro-preemption amicus briefs were filed in 2000 by the Clinton administration FDA and Justice Department. [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 3:27 pm
From the Brennan Center for Justice: 1. [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 3:22 pm
It was filed in the case of Abdah v. [read post]
25 Mar 2007, 4:00 pm
Evan Brown posted a snippet of the Daily Show's wonderful explanation of the Viacom v. [read post]
5 Mar 2007, 11:27 pm
The answer, in a word, is federalism, and the New Haven story is an interesting although unintended consequence of the 1997 decision in Printz v. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 7:43 am
But a few of the things he talks about, one does feel qualified to comment on, and sometimes one finds himself in sharp disagreement.Oddly, some of the things Posner defends, at least in part, but that one disagrees with, are things that he is not guilty of. [read post]
8 Dec 2006, 3:30 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 10:11 am
The Justice Department entered the case in Texas courts to defend energetically the President's action. [read post]
20 Oct 2006, 8:42 am
Here are some general bankruptcy related articles of interest that are available for downloading from SSRN. [read post]
