Search for: "U.S. v. Hope*"
Results 5441 - 5460
of 9,258
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2012, 5:40 am
Stuart, 427 US 539 (1976), Smith v. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 9:12 pm
They assumed that the meaning of the Commerce Clause in NFIB v. [read post]
5 May 2021, 2:01 pm
EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014) (quoting FDA v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 11:10 am
Del. 2007); Zhang v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 2:02 pm
During a time of perhaps unprecedented partisanship in U.S. [read post]
31 May 2024, 11:58 am
The U.S. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 2:13 pm
For policymakers to imagine that they can steer the public’s tastes or behavior in more desirable directions through law (including media subsidy schemes) is a profoundly elitist enterprise.[16] In the case of “news vouchers,” the hope is that the public can be encouraged to at least channel some additional support to news-gathering activities and institutions. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 7:01 am
Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989), with Barnes v. [read post]
27 Dec 2021, 12:37 am
Over 25 years ago, the Second Circuit U.S. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Crawford v. [read post]
13 Feb 2008, 5:59 am
There has already been an interesting case challenging Illinois divestment legislation (National Foreign Trade Council v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
After litigating Boerne v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 12:23 pm
Recently, a U.S. [read post]
20 May 2021, 12:23 pm
Recently, a U.S. [read post]
26 Aug 2018, 1:57 pm
– DC Software patents and applications are making a quiet comeback under Director Andrei Iancu’s leadership of the U.S. [read post]
20 May 2021, 12:23 pm
Recently, a U.S. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 1:12 pm
Seemingly left with no other choice (and likely hoping to send a message to other competing comic book conventions misusing the trademarks), SDCC filed suit against Farr and Brandenburg in August 2014 in the U.S. [read post]
25 Nov 2018, 3:31 pm
Constitution does under Roe v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 9:53 pm
.: A proper noticed motion (as opposed to an ex parte motion) and all its accompanying papers need to be filed at least 16 court days before the hearing date, and it needs to be served as follows: If by personal service, 16 court days plus zero calendar days before the hearing date; If by fax (which requires a written agreement) or by express/overnight mail, 16 court days plus 2 calendar days before the hearing date; If by mail within California, 16 court… [read post]
